"Abortion kills a human being," said Willie Parker, who has killed some 20,000 human beings, in a debate last month about the ethics of abortion. Parker is a prominent abortion practitioner and author of Life's Work: A Moral Argument for Choice.

"Women don't give birth to puppies," he observed, "so fetuses are human beings. But they're not people. And if a fetus is not a person and a woman is a person, they may both have moral weight, but that moral weight is not equal."

So why, according to Parker, aren't unborn human beings equal to the rest of us? Why aren't they "people" with rights?

Here's Parker's explanation (he gives it from 1:25:00-1:28:22 in the debate video). "I think a function of personhood is sentience, being able to have an interest," he said, adding that this may involve "skill to reason and that kind of thing." He acknowledged that acquiring such mental abilities is "not an instantaneous event," and that infants may also lack them, but he quickly ruled out infanticide by saying that "personhood begins at birth" because that "unambiguously" is "when we collectively decide that we have a compelling interest to protect the life of a person."

Hold on. Isn't birth a different criterion than sentience? Why did he say that personhood is tied to mental function, a standard that may exclude human infants (and others) from personhood, but then say that personhood is determined by birth instead?

It gets more confusing. Parker then suggested that fetal viability is actually what makes the difference. After viability, he said, "a fetus, when it becomes a baby at birth, can survive outside the womb. And the decision was, at that point, a woman cannot make the decision to end a pregnancy because the state now has a compelling interest."

So, in the span of about three minutes, here's what Parker said about personhood:

Personhood is a function of sentience.Personhood is a function of birth—because that's when we decide we have a compelling interest in protecting the child.Viability is when we decide we have a compelling interest in protecting the child.

Which is Parker's standard for personhood? Is it sentience? Is it birth or viability? Or is it—as he seemed to indicate when explaining these last two criteria—simply what we decide it is? (And who "collectively" decided in favor of birth or viability? Seven unelected men in 1973?)

Parker's statements appear contradictory. One possible interpretation is that he thinks personhood in a moral sense is tied to sentience, but that personhood in a legal sense (what the law happens to say) begins at birth, and that even before personhood begins

the state has some (lesser) interest in protecting the child at viability. He didn't make these distinctions, though, and the debate was about ethics, not about what the law currently is.

In any case, it doesn't really matter which of the four criteria Parker believes. All of them are terrible reasons to discriminate against human beings. And Parker offered no defense of them.

Birth is a change in a human being's location. Location has no bearing on the nature or value of an individual.

Viability is a measure of an individual's lack of dependence on someone else, which has nothing to do with human rights. A conjoined twin may be "non-viable" apart from the other twin, but she is still a person.

Finally, what about "when we collectively decide" that someone is a person? Is that what actually makes someone a person?

Of course not. Many cultures have "collectively decided" that certain groups of human beings are not people who deserve the protection of society. Those cultures were wrong. Human rights are not conferred on us by others. We have them already simply because we are human. And society must respect those rights as a matter of justice.

Parker should understand this well. He likes to quote Martin Luther King Jr., who articulated better than anyone the difference between what governments say and what justice requires. A law or court decision that "[relegates] persons to the status of things," Dr. King wrote, is "unjust."

Does Parker hold a different view? When he speaks, it often sounds like it.

Willie Parker became a celebrity abortionist by identifying as a Christian and invoking the parable of the Good Samaritan as a twisted rationale for dismembering inconvenient and helpless members of the human family. He is now lauded by the likes of Planned Parenthood, Gloria Steinem, and Lena Dunham. He is celebrated on The Daily Show and in the pages of The New Yorker and Rolling Stone.

They might want to rethink some of their praise. Parker's debate performance showed that he can't give defensible or even coherent reasons for his practice of lethal discrimination against a class of innocent human beings. ("I am not trained in debate. I am not trained in philosophy," he told the audience after a rebuttal given by his opponent, Prof. Mike Adams.)

But Parker's not alone. Historically, attempts to divide humanity into those who matter and those who don't have never held up to scrutiny. They have always failed the test of reason and justice.

They fail because—despite Parker and the abortion industry's shallow protestations to the contrary—human equality really is true.

ST. PAUL — Tonight legislation to protect pain-capable unborn children from the lethal violence of abortion passed on a voice vote through the Minnesota Senate Health and Human Services Finance and Policy Committee. It now advances to the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) strongly applauds the vote.

"We have many laws, customs, and traditions that seek to protect others from pain," said MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau in testimony before the committee. "Should we not extend this to the most vulnerable child—the unborn child?"

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (SF 1609 and HF 1312), authored by Sen. Michelle Benson (R-Ham Lake) and Rep. Peggy Scott (R-Andover), would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks post-fertilization (about 22 weeks gestation), when scientific evidence shows that unborn children can feel pain. Minnesota law currently allows abortion at any time during pregnancy and for any reason. The bill includes an exception when abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother or to prevent "substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."

A large body of anatomical, physiological, and behavioral evidence indicates that unborn children can experience pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization. Abortions at this stage usually involve the dilation and evacuation (D & E) method, which dismembers the unborn child and removes her from the womb piece by piece.

"Unfortunately, in Minnesota, the number of pain-capable children forced to endure this grotesque procedure has been growing substantially," Rau said, noting that Minnesota saw a nearly 500 percent increase in abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization from 2013 to 2017.

"A pain-capable unborn child is a member of our human family," she concluded, and ought to be "recognized as such and protected by law."

ST. PAUL — Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) strongly opposes legislation introduced today in the Minnesota Senate that would legalize assisted suicide in the state. A companion bill was introduced in the House last week.

"Proponents of assisted suicide claim that there are safeguards to prevent any problems," says MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "The truth is that this legislation poses real risks to Minnesotans."

S.F. 2286/H.F. 2152, authored by Sen. Chris Eaton (DFL-Brooklyn Center) and Rep. Mike Freiberg (DFL-Golden Valley), is modeled after laws adopted by a handful of other states. It would authorize doctors to prescribe lethal drugs so that patients can intentionally end their own lives.

Here are some of the bill's problems:

Once the lethal drug has been dispensed, the bill contains no safeguards at all to prevent pressure, coercion, or abuse. No one is required to witness the death.

The bill does not require a psychiatric evaluation before the patient receives the drug (the decision to refer for evaluation is left with the prescribing doctor, who is often ill-equipped to make such a judgement). In Oregon and Washington (the first two states to legalize assisted suicide), only a tiny fraction of patients seeking suicide are evaluated, and research shows that some patients receiving lethal drugs have suffered from depression.

The bill says that only patients with a prognosis of six months or less to live are eligible, but these predictions are often unreliable. In states with similar laws, some patients qualifying for assisted suicide have gone on to live for years.Despite the rhetoric of many supporters of assisted suicide, the bill does not require that patients experience pain in order to be eligible. In places where assisted suicide is legal, concern about physical pain is a not a major reason patients give for seeking suicide.

"All people deserve support, care, and protection," says Fischbach. "Let's improve our support for patients who are sick, elderly, and disabled. Let’s make sure good palliative care is available to everyone who needs it. Let's fix our elder abuse problem. And let’s continue to say no to the dangerous practice of assisted suicide."

A similar bill received a Senate committee hearing in 2016 but was pulled from consideration because it lacked the votes necessary to pass.

ST. PAUL — Today lawmakers introduced a bill in the Minnesota House of Representatives to legalize assisted suicide in Minnesota. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) strongly opposes the legislation.

"Assisted suicide is dangerous and unnecessary," says MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "This bill would pose real risks to Minnesotans. All patients deserve support and care and protection, not suicide."

H.F. 2152, authored by Rep. Mike Freiberg (DFL-Golden Valley), would effectively overturn Minnesota's current law (Minnesota Statutes 609.215) protecting against assisted suicide. The bill, modeled after laws adopted by a handful of other states, would authorize doctors to prescribe lethal drugs so that patients can intentionally end their own lives.

Among other concerns, H.F. 2152 would not require that anyone witness the death; no safeguards are present after the lethal drug has been dispensed. Nor does the bill require a psychiatric evaluation before the patient receives the drug; in Oregon and Washington (the first two states to legalize assisted suicide), only a tiny fraction of patients seeking suicide are evaluated, according to state health department reports. H.F. 2152 ostensibly requires that patients have a prognosis of six months or less to live, but in states with similar laws, some patients qualifying for assisted suicide have gone on to live for years.

"Assisted suicide harms people wherever it is legalized," says Fischbach. "Let's improve our health care and our support for patients who are sick, elderly, and disabled. Let's make sure good palliative care is available to everyone who needs it. Let’s fix our elder abuse problem. And let’s continue to reject assisted suicide."

A similar bill received a Senate committee hearing in 2016 but was pulled from consideration because it lacked the votes necessary to pass.

The legislation in question, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (S. 311), requires that babies born alive in the context of abortion be treated with "the same degree" of care that would be given "to any other child born alive at the same gestational age." The bill only concerns the treatment of these already-born, living human infants. It doesn't affect abortion in a

ny way. Nor does it affect a woman's pregnancy or her health care in any way.

Before casting her vote against advancing this measure, Tina Smith spoke on the U.S. Senate floor to express her opposition. We reproduce the full transcript of her remarks (taken from the congressional record) below. We do this because the remarks are flagrantly dishonest and call for correction.

Smith's remarks on the Senate floor

Here's what Smith said:

Madam President, I rise to join Senator Murray and my colleagues in standing up for doctors and patients in my home State of Minnesota and across the country.

S. 311 puts Congress in the middle of the important medical decisions that patients and doctors should make together without having political interference. It would compel physicians to provide unnecessary medical care. It would override physicians' professional judgments about what is best for their patients, and it would put physicians in the position of facing criminal penalties if their judgments about what is best for their patients are contrary to what is described in this bill.

Colleagues, let me be clear. For women, this is a healthcare issue, not a political issue, and this bill, I fear, interferes with the doctor-patient relationship, which should worry us all. We can all agree that people deserve the best medical care based on their individual needs and their doctors' best medical advice. This is how our medical system is supposed to work—physicians and patients making decisions together that are based on patients' individual needs.

Everybody is different. For example, any oncologist will tell you that each cancer patient's treatment is different. Treatment plans depend on the type of cancer and how advanced the cancer is. Decisions about cancer treatments also depend on each person's age and lifestyle and individual circumstances. The same is true when it comes to pregnancy. Any obstetrician will tell you that every pregnancy is different and that when complications arise, they can completely change the course of treatment. In that moment, women and their families and their doctors are the only ones who are able to make decisions about what is best for a woman and her pregnancy.

Think about what this means in real life. In August of 2016, Tippy, who is from Minnesota and has agreed for me to share her story, was pregnant and, with her husband, went to their 20-week ultrasound appointment. They were excited because they thought they were about to find out the gender of their new baby, and they had already bought decorations for the gender reveal party. Instead, Tippy and her husband got devastating news from that ultrasound. Their baby, a boy, had stopped developing properly and would not survive. They would never get to meet him and never get to hold him. The ultrasound revealed not only the tragic news about this much wanted child but also showed a dangerous condition that threatened Tippy's own health. Tippy's placenta was enlarged, and to continue her pregnancy would risk the health of her reproductive system and her ability to have future children of her own.

Tippy, with her family and her doctor, made the difficult decision to have an abortion in order to save her reproductive system. Because she was able to make that medical decision, she was able to have another baby a year later. Tippy and her husband are today the proud parents of an 18-month-old child. When Tippy and her husband made their decision, it was based on guidance from her doctor and what was right for them and the family they hoped to have in the future.

They didn't need politicians to be looking over their shoulders in the doctor's office and telling them what to do. None of us in this body should be in the business of interfering in that doctor-patient relationship. We don't tell oncologists how to treat their patients; we don't tell emergency room doctors how to save lives; and we shouldn't tell women's doctors how to take care of their patients.

Colleagues, that is what this bill does. It would give politicians in this room the power to make medical decisions for women and their families. This bill intimidates providers and forces physicians to provide inappropriate medical treatment even when it is not in the best interests of their patients or their families.

Colleagues, we should treat women with respect. Decisions about women's healthcare aren't different from decisions about men's healthcare, so why are we treating women differently? This legislation, if it were to become law, would put doctors in an untenable position: Do they follow the law or do they follow their code of professional ethics?

Colleagues, let's get out of the business of dictating medical care for women. Let's continue to trust women and their doctors. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I yield the floor.

These comments don't accurately describe the bill, and if Smith has read the bill, she knows it.

Why Smith's remarks are thoroughly dishonest

Start with the story of Tippy, a woman who had an abortion. Smith tells this story even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with the legislation. The only way it could be relevant is if Tippy's baby was born alive. In that case, the bill says the child should be treated like other premature infants rather than discriminated against merely because of the circumstances of her birth. But that equal treatment wouldn't prevent Tippy from having the abortion in the first place. It certainly wouldn't prevent doctors from caring for Tippy in whatever way they thought best.

The rest of Smith's speech is no better. She says that "for women, this is a health care issue." How? A woman's health care doesn't require the denial of health care to someone else. Smith says that the bill is about "dictating medical care for women." Again, how is it about that? Smith says we should "treat women with respect" and rhetorically asks, "Why are we treating women different?" Well, we're not.

If Smith were sincere, these comments would be completely baffling. Could Smith actually believe that the fate of a separate and already-born child falls within the domain of the mother's "health care"? Is a newborn infant a part of her mother's body? No one believes that because it's nonsense. Smith says the bill pertains to "decisions about women's health care." The bill actually pertains to "decisions about whether to deny proper care to individuals other than women." What Smith is doing here is called lying.

Regarding doctors, Smith claims that the bill would "compel physicians to provide unnecessary care." No, it wouldn't. The bill doesn't specify the care that is appropriate in any given situation. It simply says that physicians can't treat certain babies differently just because their mothers had abortions. (Or is Smith suggesting that any care for a baby who survives abortion is "unnecessary"?)

Smith says that the bill would "override physicians' professional judgments about what is best for their patients." It would only do this if physicians' "judgment" is that they should abandon, neglect, or kill their patients. Smith claims that the bill would force doctors to choose whether to follow the law or to follow "their code of professional ethics." What code of ethics requires discriminating against babies who survive abortions? If that's the code embraced by Smith (a former Planned Parenthood executive) and others from the abortion industry, then the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is desperately needed.

Read the bill yourself

On Feb. 25, Tina Smith voted against providing appropriate medical care to living human infants who are fortunate enough to survive abortion. Presumably, she doesn't want to acknowledge or defend this deeply unpopular position. So she pretended the bill is about something else instead. She gave a 700-word speech without ever mentioning the human beings who are the sole focus of the legislation.

We encourage Minnesotans to read the text of Smith's speech about the bill. Then read the text of the actual bill. This is all public information. Anyone can see the truth for themselves.

Tina Smith chose to lie, and lie extravagantly, and then hope that most people won't notice.

Unborn children targeted for abortion are too young to have a voice. But when a child miraculously survives that abortion, she can grow up to be a voice for all of them.

Melissa Ohden's birth mother underwent a coerced saline infusion abortion in 1977. Melissa survived the five-day poisoning meant to end her life. And now she speaks up for others like her.

"We live in a culture that … has termed lives like mine 'the dreaded complication' of an abortion—a child who lives," Melissa said at MCCL's 2019 Legislative Dinner. "This is what abortion has done to our society. People now make life-and-death decisions about lives like mine every single day."

Melissa headlined the MCCL event on Feb. 26 at the Landmark Center in St. Paul. In a room full of state lawmakers and their constituents, Melissa shared her story of survival, forgiveness, and restoration. And she pointed to the importance of protecting the human rights of other children threatened by abortion or infanticide.

"My experience is one that most children [who are subjected to abortion] will never be able to experience—because their lives are ended in that abortion, or after they're born alive," Melissa said. "When children like me fight for our lives in the womb, we shouldn't have to fight for our lives again after we survive that abortion."

Melissa is the founder of the Abortion Survivors Network. She has testified before Congress, been featured on national radio and television programs, and authored the book You Carried Me: A Daughter's Memoir.

Her story is more relevant now than ever. In recent weeks, politicians in New York and elsewhere have pushed extreme legislation to remove the most modest limits on abortion—and even to repeal protections for babies, like Melissa, who survive abortion.

On Feb. 25, the U.S. Senate defeated the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which simply requires that babies born alive in the context of abortion be treated the same as other babies born at the same age—it prevents abortion practitioners from abandoning, neglecting, or killing them. A total of 44 senators, including Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, voted against protecting lives like Melissa's.

"I feel like we're really in this defining moment of our culture right now," Melissa said, "where life is either going to be greater protected and respected or ultimately aggressively attacked and rejected."

But she expressed determination and optimism.

"This is the time that legislation is needed more than ever," she said. "It's not a time to grow weary; it's not a time to slow down. The [pro-life] efforts will continue to speed up, and I know they're doing that right here in Minnesota."

Melissa added: "We're on the side of justice. We're on the side of compassion. And I think people are starting to figure that out."

ST. PAUL — Minnesota's two U.S. senators, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, today voted against advancing legislation to protect newborn babies who survive abortion. With the opposition of Klobuchar, who is currently running for president, and Smith, a former executive at Planned Parenthood in Minnesota, the Senate's 53-44 vote total fell short of the 60 votes required to break a filibuster and proceed with consideration of the bill.

"The extremism and inhumanity of the position taken by Klobuchar and Smith can't be overstated," says Scott Fischbach, executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). "We're talking about infants who are alive and outside of their mother's body. They are vulnerable and helpless and in need of basic care and protection. Klobuchar and Smith voted to deny them that care."

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (S. 311), sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), requires that a baby born alive in the context of abortion be afforded "the same degree" of care that would apply "to any other child born alive at the same gestational age," including transportation to a hospital. The bill applies the existing penalties of the federal murder statute to anyone who performs "an overt act that kills a child born alive." The bill also empowers women with a right to sue the abortion practitioner for harm caused by violations of the act.

Smith spoke against the measure in today’s debate on the Senate floor. While flagrantly mischaracterizing what the bill actually does, Smith said that preventing abortion practitioners from neglecting, abandoning, or killing newborn babies would “interfere in the doctor-patient relationship.”

"The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which anyone can read for themselves online, has no effect whatsoever on abortion or access to abortion," notes Fischbach. "Nor does it infringe in any way on women's health care or the doctor-patient relationship. It just says that these already-born human beings should be treated like human beings. That's it. And that's what Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith have just come out against."

Although Minnesota has a statute (145.423) ensuring care for abortion survivors, many states do not, and New York recently repealed explicit protection for babies who survive abortion. Last month Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, speaking about the fate of abortion survivors under legislation he supported, said in an interview, "The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

In Minnesota, three abortions resulted in a born-alive infant in 2017 (the latest year for which data is available), according to the Department of Health. In 2016, five abortions led to a live birth.

Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support care and protection for newborn babies.

ST. PAUL — Legislation to protect pain-capable unborn children from the lethal violence of abortion was introduced today in the Minnesota Senate. The bill was introduced in the House on Monday. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's largest pro-life organization, strongly supports the measure.

"In recent weeks, elected officials in New York and elsewhere have shocked the rest of the nation by pushing very extreme abortion policies," says MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau. "Many Minnesotans don't realize that our own state fails to protect unborn babies even late in pregnancy. This new bill would change that."

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (HF 1312 and SF 1609) is authored by Rep. Peggy Scott (R-Andover) in the House and Sen. Michelle Benson (R-Ham Lake) in the Senate. It would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks post-fertilization (about 22 weeks after the last menstrual period), when scientific evidence shows that unborn children can feel pain. The bill includes an exception when abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother or to prevent "substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."

Minnesota law currently allows abortion at any time during pregnancy and for any reason. (A 1974 law banning abortion after the point of fetal "viability" was struck down in court.) In 2017, the most recent year for which data is available, 223 abortions were performed at 20 weeks gestation or later, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. A total of 85 of these abortions took place at 22 weeks or later. The latest abortion was performed at 26 weeks.

"Most people don’t support the killing of unborn children this far into pregnancy," says Rau. "Minnesota's abortion policy is outside the mainstream and it's long past time for a change."

A Marist poll conducted last month found that a solid majority of Americans favor legal protection for unborn children after 20 weeks. Similar legislation passed through the Minnesota Legislature twice in recent years, but was vetoed both times by then-Gov. Mark Dayton.

A large body of anatomical, physiological, and behavioral evidence indicates that unborn children can experience pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization. Abortions at this stage usually involve the dilation and evacuation (D & E) method, which dismembers the unborn child and removes her from the womb piece by piece. Other late abortions involve poisoning the child with a lethal injection before inducing labor.

"Human beings deserve better than this," concludes Rau. "They deserve the protection of a just and humane and compassionate society. Even just one of these children brutally ripped apart is one too many."

Our culture deeply values equality. Our culture also practices industrial-scale abortion. Supporters of abortion typically see no contradiction between these two things.

Planned Parenthood, for example, says it wants to "[establish] a society wher

e every individual is treated equally under the law." New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a leading champion of no-limits abortion, vigorously touts his commitment to "equality" and "equal rights."

Of course, Cuomo and Planned Parenthood don't accept equal rights for unborn children. But they think other individuals (such as you, the reader of this article, and me, the author) are morally equal. Most people who favor abortion think the same.

This raises a very serious problem, however, one that few abortion defenders recognize. Can abortion and equality actually coexist? Here's why they cannot.

How abortion undermines equality

Consider the idea that abortion is morally permissible—that it's okay to kill human embryos and fetuses in utero. The most intellectually tenable justification for this view (the justification sophisticated abortion advocates usually, but not always, put forward) is that unborn humans don't have human rights or don't deserve the same respect as other members of our species.

If unborn human beings don't have rights, though, then the criterion for having rights must be something other than being human—it must be something that unborn humans do

n't have. Maybe it's a particular size or appearance. Maybe it's self-awareness, sentience, or other mental functions, as pro-choice philosophers argue. Maybe it's a lack of dependence on someone else, as the U.S. Supreme Court has suggested.

Here's the problem: All of these traits vary in degree. They are a sliding scale. No two people are exactly the same. Some people are bigger and some people are smaller. Some people are more intelligent and some people are less intelligent. Some people rely completely on caregivers and some people need little help from others.

If sliding-scale characteristics are the basis for our value, then people who have more of those characteristics are more valuable than people who have less. If those attributes confer a right to life, then some people have a stronger right to life and some people have a weaker right to life. There's no such thing as moral equality. It's a myth. Some of us, on this view, just matter more than others.

Our society, therefore, should "abandon the idea of the equal value of all humans," explains pro-choice ethicist and Princeton professor Peter Singer, "replacing that with a more graduated view in which moral status depends on some aspects of cognitive ability."

It turns out that, if unborn children don’t have rights, then none of us are equal.

How equality undermines abortion

Consider, on the other hand, the idea of equality—that people (such as you and me) are equal in a fundamental moral sense. We have equal value and equal basic rights, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or socioeconomic status. Most of us truly believe this.

If we are morally equal, though, then we must share something in common that is the basis for our equality, as Josh Brahm of the Equal Rights Institute points out. There must be something about us that is the same. What could that be?

It can't be our looks, or our mental acuity, or our athletic ability, or our creativity, or our emotional intelligence. It can't be our moral character. It can't be how others feel about us. We differ from each other in all of those ways. In fact, we seem to differ from each other in every way except one.

The only thing we share, and share equally, is the kind of being we are. We are equally human. As the philosopher Boethius classically put it, human beings have a "rational nature." This human nature—this common humanity—is the only basis for our equality.

But unborn children are also human beings. They are the same kind of being as us, albeit at an earlier developmental stage. They share, then, in our equal value and equal rights. And that means that killing them through abortion is unjust.

They can't both be true

This is the dilemma abortion defenders face. The idea that abortion is permissible entails that people aren't equal. The idea that people are equal entails that abortion is a grave human rights violation.

So which is it? Abortion or equality? They can't both be true. They are mutually exclusive.

ST. PAUL — Legislation introduced today in the Minnesota House and Senate would ensure that abortion-seeking pregnant women can see an ultrasound of their unborn child. The measure is strongly backed by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL).

"Ultrasound imaging provides women with factual medical information," says MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau. "When people are better informed, they make better decisions that result in fewer regrets. Women deserve the chance to decide for themselves whether or not to see their child."

Abortion facilities routinely perform an ultrasound before abortion in order to determine the developmental stage and location of the child, but the woman usually isn’t given the chance to view it. The new legislation (SF 1168 and HF 1108), authored by Rep. Julie Sandstede (DFL-Hibbing) in the House and Sen. Michelle Benson (R-Ham Lake) in the Senate, would merely require that, if and when an ultrasound is performed prior to abortion, the woman be offered the opportunity to see.

The bill would add a paragraph to the existing Woman's Right to Know informed consent statute, which became law in 2003.

"This is completely mainstream legislation that lawmakers of diverse viewpoints can and should support," says Rau. "It simply empowers women to make an informed decision."

The Legislature passed a similar ultrasound bill with bipartisan support in 2018, but it was vetoed by then-Gov. Mark Dayton. A total of 28 states already have some form of ultrasound-related informed consent requirement, according to the National Right to Life Committee, and many of those laws are significantly more prescriptive than the Minnesota proposal.

]]>Amy Klobuchar is no moderate when it comes to treatment of unborn childrenPaul Starkhttps://www.mccl.org/single-post/2019/02/11/Amy-Klobuchar-is-no-moderate-when-it-comes-to-treatment-of-unborn-childrenhttps://www.mccl.org/single-post/2019/02/11/Amy-Klobuchar-is-no-moderate-when-it-comes-to-treatment-of-unborn-childrenMon, 11 Feb 2019 19:57:30 +0000

ST. PAUL — Amy Klobuchar has put together an extreme and uncompromising record on abortion during her 12 years in the U.S. Senate, according to Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's largest pro-life organization. Klobuchar announced yesterday that she is running for president of the United States.

"Sen. Klobuchar has cultivated an image that has made her popular among many Minnesotans," says MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "But her views on abortion and unborn children are decidedly out-of-step with the views of most Minnesotans and most Americans."

Klobuchar has never voted for a pro-life bill or for a restriction on abortion, no matter how modest, earning a zero percent pro-life voting record (zero pro-life votes out of 36 chances), according to National Right to Life. Klobuchar voted for taxpayer funding of elective abortions and taxpayer funding of the abortion industry. She voted to fund groups overseas that perform or promote abortions. And she voted against protection for unborn children after 20 weeks (and thus in favor of abortion in the sixth month and later), when unborn children can feel pain as they are dismembered and killed through abortion.

"Sen. Klobuchar said in her announcement speech yesterday that 'everyone matters,'" notes Fischbach. "But there's one class of innocent human beings—the youngest and most vulnerable members of our human family—whom she thinks matter very little."

Polls consistently show that Americans disagree with Klobuchar's extreme position. A 2018 Gallup poll found only 28 percent of Americans think abortion should be generally legal in the second trimester of pregnancy, and only 13 percent think it should be generally legal in the third trimester. A 2019 Marist poll determined that, even among Klobuchar's fellow Democrats, a majority of 60 percent think abortion should be limited to the first trimester or to rare cases, or not permitted at all.

The Marist poll also found widespread opposition to Klobuchar's stances on specific legislation. It found that a majority of Americans support protecting unborn children after 20 weeks and oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions.

"Voters should know that Amy Klobuchar takes a no-limits approach to the killing of unborn children," concludes Fischbach. "Both babies and their mothers deserve better than this."

Unborn children may look different from other human beings, but appearance has nothing to do with value. Unborn children are less physically and mentally developed, but toddlers are less developed than teenagers, and that doesn't make them any less important. Unborn children are dependent on someone else, but so are newborn children and people with disabilities.

ST. PAUL — Thousands of Minnesotans converged on the state Capitol in St. Paul today to give voice to the idea that human rights belong to all human beings and that both unborn children and their mothers deserve our support and compassion. The annual Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) March for Life marked the 46th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, which made abortion legal for any reason and stripped a whole class of innocent human beings, unborn children, of protection under the law.

"There have been more than 60 million unborn children killed by abortion, and m

ore than 600,000 unborn babies in Minnesota alone," MCCL's Robyn Swiderski told the large crowd of citizens gathered from across the state. "Every single one of those children should have had a chance to live."

MCCL introduced its 2019 legislative agenda at today's event during a brief program on the Capitol steps. The agenda calls on lawmakers to enact legislation ensuring women have the option to view their ultrasound prior to undergoing abortion. Ultrasound is usually performed before an abortion, but women generally aren’t offered the chance to see. An MCCL-backed ultrasound bill passed through both the Minnesota House and Senate last year, but it was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton.

"Women deserve to see the truth that an ultrasound shows," said Swiderski. "They deserve to make an informed decision about a procedure that is life-altering not just to the child, but for the mother as well."

Many of Minnesota's state legislators attended today’s March and were introduced during the program. Legislative leaders addressed the crowd and pledged their support for pro-life efforts.

"The right to life is a basic human right and should be protected by all those in elected office," House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt told the pro-life gathering. "Your presence here on a frigid January day is a testament to your belief in this cause."

Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka lauded the pro-life movement’s incremental progress. "Being pro-life and protecting life from conception to death is something ... that we need to continue to advocate for," he said. "I saw many of you … marching down here step by step by step by step. And that's what this cause has taken. It’s been step, after step, after step."

Members of Congress sent written greetings to the crowd. "While I am unable to attend, know that I stand with you in support of human life," wrote Rep. Collin Peterson. "I look forward to working together to save lives in the 116th Congress."

"As the father of four beautiful children, I have always believed that each life has value and should be protected," said Rep. Pete Stauber. "It fills my heart with joy to know that so many Minnesotans are standing side by side in defense of the most vulnerable: the unborn."

"Defending our God-given rights, including the right to life, is a top priority for me," wrote Rep. Jim Hagedorn. "We must protect innocent, vulnerable life, especially unborn children, disabled individuals, the elderly and those with special needs."

In its Roe v. Wade decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution prohibits Americans from legally protecting human beings in utero. Killing those human beings, the Court said, must be allowed for any reason.

You don't have to be pro-life in order to want this decision overturned. That's because Roe was a flagrant judicial mistake that usurped authority belonging to the American people rather than to the Court.

John Hart Ely, the eminent legal scholar and Yale law professor, famously concluded that Roe "is a very bad decision," but "not because it conflicts with … my idea of progress." Instead, he explained, "It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

Here are three of Roe's most egregious errors.

(1) Roe asserted a right to abortion that is actually just a non sequitur.

Roe said that the Fourteenth Amendment includes a right to abortion. The Fourteenth Amendment says nothing about abortion. The Court claimed, however, that the amendment's protection of "liberty" (states may not deny it without due process) implies a "right to privacy" that is "broad enough to encompass" a fundamental right to abortion.

Why think this? The Constitution does protect many freedoms, but countless activities, including many activities done in "private," are not considered protected liberties under the Constitution. Why is the dismemberment and destruction of unborn human beings protected? Roe said that abortion restrictions can be a "detriment" to people (raising a child, the Court observed, is taxing). But that's also true of other legal restrictions that are uncontroversially permissible (such as a ban on infanticide even when an infant's parents face economic hardship).

This was the Court's "argument" for a right to abortion. The conclusion is a non sequitur—it simply does not follow from anything the Court said.

That's no secret among those who have read the Roe decision and tried to track its logic. Roe "provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding," acknowledges Edward Lazarus, a supporter of legalized abortion who clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun (the author of Roe). "As a constitutional argument," adds University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt (another supporter of legalized abortion), "Roe is barely coherent. The Court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether."

And that's putting a positive spin on it.

(2) Roe distorted history in order to seem less ridiculous.

Roe's claim of a Fourteenth Amendment abortion right is even worse than unfounded. It's flatly contradicted by the very people who agreed to the Fourteenth Amendment in the first place.

That amendment was adopted in 1868. During the same era, states enacted a wave of statutes banning elective abortion. The Ohio legislature, for example, ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in early 1867. A few months later, the same legislature voted to strengthen Ohio's abortion ban, with the committee overseeing the bill calling abortion "child murder."

These facts pose a fatal problem for Roe's alleged abortion right. According to Roe, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits doing exactly what the people who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment actually did. This is a ridiculous view. It's presumably why, among the decision's other debunked historical claims, Roe tried to suggest (on the basis of a tissue-paper-thin theory put forward by a lawyer for NARAL) that the anti-abortion laws weren't meant to protect unborn children. Overwhelming historical evidence shows otherwise.

"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment," noted Justice William Rehnquist in his Roe dissent. "The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

The American people have never agreed to a constitutional right to abortion. That's a fact, and it's an obvious and undeniable fact.

(3) Roe offered a circular argument to justify its decision about who lives and who dies.

Which human beings may be legally protected from lethal violence and which human beings may not be? Roe drew the line at "viability"—when a child can survive (albeit with assistance) independently of her mother. (Roe also said, however, in conjunction with Doe v. Bolton, that any limit on post-viability abortion must include an exception so broad that it could effectively nullify the limit.)

What reasons did the Court give for this hugely significant decision, one with life-or-death consequences on a massive scale? Well, none. The Court had "no reason at all," observes Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe (a strong abortion supporter). It chose viability arbitrarily. Roe merely offered this one-sentence circular explanation: "[Viability is the 'compelling' point] because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb."

Viability is important, that is, because viability is viability. "The Court's defense," quipped John Hart Ely, "seems to mistake a definition for a syllogism."

If legislators crafting a law had no rationale whatsoever for a crucially important choice, that would be appalling. This is far worse. Supreme Court justices are not lawmakers. They are judges who are supposed to interpret and apply the law that already exists. And they didn't even pretend that their viability criterion had anything to do with it.

How Roe undermines democracy

So Roe v. Wade badly misapplied the Constitution—or just disregarded it altogether—in order to invent and impose a new nationwide abortion policy. Why is this such a big deal?

Justice Byron White, a dissenter in Roe, explained the problem in his dissent in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. "[T]he Constitution itself is ordained and established by the people of the United States," he wrote. "[D]ecisions that find in the Constitution principles or values that cannot fairly be read into that document usurp the people's authority, for such decisions represent choices that the people have never made, and that they cannot disavow through corrective legislation."

Supporters of Roe aren't in the habit of trying to defend it on its legal merits. "You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor … who will embrace [Roe] itself rather than the result," says Kermit Roosevelt. Those who defend Roe do so entirely because they like the policy it created. But this is America. The people should be allowed to have a say.

"[A] bad decision is a bad decision," writes Richard Cohen, a supporter of abortion, in the Washington Post. "If the best we can say for [Roe] is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument—but a bit of our soul as well."

A new year is a new beginning. We at MCCL want to use the new year to rejuvenate, strengthen, and expand our pro-life educational activities.

We want to inform more Minnesotans of the humanity of the unborn child, the

brutal reality of abortion, and the practical resources and abortion alternatives that are available to pregnant women in need.

We want to persuade more Minnesotans that every human being counts

and that both mother and child deserve our respect and protection.

We want to motivate more Minnesotans to live and vote pro-life and to partner with us as we work to make abortion unthinkable in our culture.

If you want to be part of this lifesaving mission, here are some simple ways you can join us to change hearts and minds in 2019:

Invite friends or family members to accompany you at the MCCL March for Life (Jan. 22) and MCCL Legislative Dinner (Feb. 26). These events are both informative and motivational.

Invite your own students or students you know to attend MCCL's Student Day at the Capitol (March 4 or March 14). This a unique pro-life experience in government for students in grades 7-12.

Volunteer for a shift staffing MCCL's pro-life booth at your county fair or at the State Fair this summer. Your presence will help inform fairgoers about fetal development and abortion.

Invite high school students to participate in MCCL's Life Leadership Camp Aug. 4-7 in Paynesville. This pro-life summer camp trains and equips young people to be knowledgeable and effective pro-life leaders.

Invite MCCL to deliver a pro-life presentation to your church, school, or group.

Follow MCCL on and share our pro-life articles, graphics, and links with your own social network.

Order MCCL educational materials (such as brochures, fliers, and billboards) and share them with others.

Become a member of MCCL if you aren't already. Encourage others to do the same. Everything MCCL does is only possible with your faithful and generous support!

More information about all of these opportunities can be found on our website or by contacting MCCL. Thanks for all you do!

ST. PAUL — Tomorrow is the 23rd anniversary of the Minnesota Supreme Court decision that required taxpayer funding of abortion. Since the Doe v. Gomez ruling, Minnesota taxpayers have reimbursed abortion practitioners close to $25 million for nearly 82,000 abortion procedure claims.

"Doe v. Gomez went further than Roe v. Wade did at the national level," says MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "Doe said not only that abortion has to be legal for any reason, but also that, in many cases, Minnesotans have to foot the bill for other people's abortions."

Minnesota law prohibited public funding of elective abortions until a 1994 decision by a Hennepin County District Court judge, who ruled that women have a "privacy right" to abortion under the Minnesota Constitution—and that the right to equal protection entails that the government, which pays for prenatal care for low-income women, must also pay for abortions for low-income women.

The Minnesota Supreme Court then upheld and broadened that ruling in its Doe v. Gomez decision on Dec. 15, 1995. According to Doe, the Minnesota Constitutio

n, like the U.S. Constitution according to Roe v. Wade, requires legalized abortion. But Doe also requires public funding of abortion for women receiving state assistance—something not required at the national level under Roe.

The abortion industry has taken full advantage of the Court's constitutionally groundless decision.

In 2016, taxpayers bankrolled a record-high 4,321 abortions at a cost of $1.056 million, according to the . Taxpayers now fund a record-high 43.4 percent of all Minnesota abortions. Planned Parenthood, the state's leading practitioner of abortion, performed a record-high 2,322 tax-funded abortions in 2016—a 168 percent increase since 2011.

"Taxpayer funding gives the abortion industry an easy revenue stream by allowing it to offer ‘free’ abortions to economically vulnerable women," says Fischbach. "It keeps the number of abortions higher than it would otherwise be. Women, children, and taxpayers all pay a price."

In 2011 and 2017, MCCL helped pass legislation that would challenge the Doe decision by prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortion, but both bills were vetoed by the governor.

How can we persuade others that abortion is an injustice? It's not always easy.

Some people see ultrasound images or fetal models and quickly recognize the humanity of unborn children. Some people hear descriptions of abortion procedures and understand the inhumanity of dismembering human beings in their mother's womb.

Other people, though, are not persuaded by these facts. They may believe that unborn children aren't really human if they can't yet think or feel. They may deeply value the right to bodily autonomy. They may think that making abortion illegal would have unfair or dangerous consequences for women.

How do we change the views of these abortion supporters? Most of them are unlikely to spend time reading pro-life articles or watching pro-life presentations. Most are unf

amiliar with the best pro-life arguments and responses.

This is where dialogue comes into play. Dialogue, in many cases, is the only way to share the pro-life message, answer concerns, get people thinking—and change their minds. Yet conversations about abortion, especially on social media, are often unproductive or even counterproductive.

Here are three things you can do that will make your conversations—whether face-to-face or through another medium—more fruitful.

(1) Know the basics of the debate

You don't need to know everything about the abortion debate, but it's helpful to know some basics. Remember these three steps of the pro-life argument:

The unborn (the human embryo or fetus) is a human being—a living human organism at the earliest developmental stages. This is a fact of science.

All human beings—regardless of age, size, ability, and dependency—have human rights. This is a principle of justice.

Therefore, the unborn human being has human rights, which include the right not to be intentionally killed.

Most arguments in defense of abortion (such as appeals to choice, circumstances, consequences, and tolerance) assume that unborn children don't count as valuable members of the human family. You can show this using a tactic Scott Klusendorf calls "trot out the toddler." Ask whether an argument for abortion would work as a justification for killing toddlers or other born human beings. Do parents facing economic hardship, for example, have the right to choose to kill their 3-year-olds? Of course not. If unborn children also have human rights, like born humans do, then these arguments don’t justify killing them either.

Other arguments try to show that unborn children don't count. One approach is to claim that unborn children aren’t even human beings in the biological sense (a denial of step 1). But that's empirically false. The science of embryology shows that human embryos and fetuses are living (they grow, metabolize food into energy, and react to stimuli), human (they have human DNA and human parents), and whole organisms developing themselves through the different stages of life as members of our species.

Another approach is to argue that although unborn children are biologically human, they do not have the same value and right to life as older human beings—they are not yet "persons" like we are (a denial of step 2). But the differences between born and unborn human beings simply aren’t relevant to whether or not an individual bears a right to life. Unborn children may look different, for example, but appearance has nothing to do with value. Unborn children are less physically and mentally developed, but toddlers are less developed than teenagers, and that doesn't make them any less important. Unborn children are dependent on someone else, but so are newborn children and disabled persons.

When an abortion supporter claims unborn children don't have rights because they lack a particular characteristic, you can highlight two major problems with this view. First, that characteristic, whatever it is, always excludes more human beings than just unborn children. Second, the characteristic comes in varying degrees, and that means some people are more valuable or have greater rights than others. If self-awareness is the trait that confers rights, for example, then comatose patients and human infants have no rights, and people who are more self-aware have greater rights than those who are less self-aware. Equality, according to this kind of view, is a myth.

The pro-life view, by contrast, holds that we have rights simply because we are human—not because of what we look like, or what we can do, or what others think or feel about us, but rather because of what (the kind of being) we are. So all human beings matter, and they matter equally because they are equally human.

The next time you explain to someone why you're pro-life, try saying this: "Because I'm convinced that human equality is really true." Or this: "Because I think human rights are inclusive—they belong to all hu

mans rather than only some." It's probably not the explanation the other person is expecting, and it almost guarantees that you'll have a substantive conversation.

A third type of argument says that, regardless of the nature or value of the unborn child, abortion is justified because pregnant women have a right to control what happens inside their own bodies. But this bodily autonomy should respect the bodies of other human beings. Even most abortion supporters, for example, agree that pregnant women shouldn't ingest drugs that cause birth defect

s. And if harming unborn children is wrong, then killing them by crushing and tearing them into pieces is even worse.

According to a more sophisticated version of the argument, just as we may refuse to donate an organ to save someone else's life, a pregnant woman may refuse to let an unborn child use her body to survive. Abortion, however, isn't merely the withdrawal of bodily support—it is intentional and active killing, often by dismemberment, which violates the child's right to life and right to bodily integrity. The father and mother, moreover, bear responsibility for the care of their child because they brought her into existence.

If you just understand these basics—the logic of the pro-life view and the three main categories of arguments in support of abortion—you will know more about the abortion debate than almost everyone. And that gives you a huge advantage in any conversation.

(2) Show respect and compassion

To have any chance of persuasion, though, you have to communicate your knowledge in a particular way. You have to be the kind of person to whom others will listen.

Conduct yourself with gentleness and respect. This is the right way to act. The pro-life view, after all, is that every human being deserves our respect (even those with whom we disagree about whether everyone deserves respect!). This is also the only way that actually works. You won't persuade someone if you refuse to listen to and understand her perspective, or if you make your points with condescension, annoyance, anger, or name-calling.

Avoid judgments about character and motive. People who support abortion, however mistaken their view, are not the enemy. Even people who work in the abortion industry are not the enemy. (Many members of that industry have become pro-life, in fact, and some have even become pro-life leaders.) We ought to "seek only to defeat evil systems," said Martin Luther King Jr. "Individuals who happen to be caught up in that system," on the other hand, "you love."

When emotional objections to the pro-life view arise, compassion is crucial. Show compassion by affirming legitimate concerns expressed by the other person. If she thinks you're callous or indifferent, she's much less likely to consider your point of view.

For example, if someone draws attention to the difficult circumstances that many pregnant women face, agree with her wholeheartedly. Many pregnant women face enormously tough and often unfair situations. Then you can show why difficult circumstances don't justify killing (try

"trotting out the toddler") and how we can respond to these difficulties with practical support and positive alternatives to abortion.

If someone talks about cases of rape, don't just explain why abortion isn't the solution. First take time to acknowledge the evil of rape and the injustice when a woman becomes pregnant as a result. This builds rapport with the other person and shows that you’re not a moral monster. It shows that she may just want to consider what you have to say.

You might speak with an abortion supporter who has personally experienced abortion, poverty, or abuse. Her rejection of the pro-life view may be less intellectual than emotional. So ask about her experience, listen, and express sympathy when appropriate. Carefully suggest some post-abortion resources. Just as unborn children should matter to us, people hurting from abortion or other traumas should matter too.

(3) Ask questions

In addition to knowing the arguments and communicating them in a winsome manner, there's one simple dialogue technique that can make your conversations far more productive.

That technique, to borrow from Socrates and from an approach developed by Greg Koukl, is to ask questions instead of just make statements. Questions allow you to engage with others rather than lecture at them in a way that seems pushy or obnoxious.

You can use questions in three ways. First, open-ended questions help get dialogue started. Share a pro-life article on social media, for example, and ask your followers what they think about it. Or say to your friend or family member: "So I was reading an interesti

ng article about abortion the other day. You and I have never talked about that topic. What's your take on it?"

Second, use questions to graciously make the other person explain and defend his own views. "It's often only when we’re asked to explain something that we realize whether we have answers, and whether those answers make sense," writes Stephanie Gray in her book Love Unleashes Life: Abortion and the Art of Communicating Truth. Ask the abortion supporter to clarify what he means when there is ambiguity ("What do you mean by that?"). And ask him to provide reasons in support of his claims ("Why do you think that's true?"). For example:

"You say that no one knows when life begins. Do you mean 'life' in the biological sense? (The life of a human organism begins at fertilization.) Or are you talking about when a human organism becomes valuable or has a right to life?"

"You believe a fetus is human but not a person. What do you mean by 'person'? Are you saying that there are some human beings who have no human rights?”

"You say abortion in the first trimester is okay, but you oppose late-term abortion? What's the difference and why do you think it matters to whether or not someone may be killed?"

Third, you can use questions in a proactive way to gently make a point or expose problems you see in the other person's view:

"I agree that women have a right to choose to do lots of things. But aren't there some things we don't have the right to do? Like things that are unjust? Isn't the question at issue whether or not abortion is one of those unjust things?"

"If an unborn child shouldn't be protected because she is not yet 'viable' (able to survive independently), wouldn't that mean that a conjoined twin who can't survive apart from the body of the other twin shouldn't be protected either?"

"Since you believe in equality, doesn't that mean we all have something in common—and have it equally—that is the basis for our equality? What could that be other than our shared humanity? And isn't a fetus also human?"

As Gray says, "Questions have power." They can lead people to think seriously about their views. And that's the context in which people sometimes come to change their minds.

We need to talk about abortion

If you do these three things—know some basics, show respect and compassion, and ask a few gracious questions—your conversations will go much smoother.

Here are a few final points of advice. First, don't force conversations. Many times and places aren't appropriate for a conversation about a sensitive topic. People aren't receptive if they feel uncomfortable or awkward. But if an opportunity arises, be ready to take advantage.

Second, you won't always know how to deal with an argument or objection, and that's fine. The best response is honesty. Just say, "That's an interesting point—I will have to think more about that. Maybe we can talk about it later, or I can email you my thoughts?" Then think through the issue and read what pro-life authors have said about it.

Third, don't expect to change someone's mind on the spot. That often doesn’t happen (especially with someone who has a firm pre-existing view). Just try to leave him with something to think about and a positive experience interacting with a pro-life person. You might also offer to continue the conversation at a later time.

Sometimes, if a person is belligerent or unwilling to listen, a real dialogue isn't even possible. In that case you might want to politely end the conversation.

Make no mistake, though: Dialogue is important. It's important because it can and does help change hearts and minds. It can and does help people reject and oppose abortion in their own lives and support legal protection for unborn children and their mothers. It can and will help make abortion culturally unthinkable.

The lives of human beings, individuals who really matter, are at stake. That's why we need to talk about abortion. And that's why we need to do it well.

Abortion is just one of numerous political issues that citizens may take into consideration when deciding how to vote. But abortion is actually very different from the others. Three factors together make the importance of abortion utterly unique.

What makes abortion extraordinarily important

The first factor is the scale of abortion. More than 10,000 human beings are killed through abortion in Minnesota each year, according to the Department of Health. In 2016 (the latest year for which general health data is available), abortion caused 10,017 deaths while 9,845 Minnesotans died of cancer and 7,823 died of heart disease. That makes abortion the leading cause of human death in the state.

The same is true nationwide. Abortion accounts for the deaths of more than 900,000 human beings each year. Heart disease is the next leading cause at just over 600,000 deaths.

Abortion represents a simply staggering loss of human life.

The second factor is the injustice of abortion. Many people die from diseases like cancer and heart disease, and that's a tragedy that calls for a compassionate response. But it's not an injustice. It's not intentional killing or a violation of anyone's rights. Abortion is intentional killing. Abortion is a violation of the right to life.

Of course, abortion isn't the only form of unjust killing. Some people, for example, are unjustly killed in school shootings and acts of gang violence. Fortunately, however, that killing is illegal. The rights of the victims are protected by law, and the government at least aims to prevent such terrible crimes. The rights of the victims of abortion, by contrast, are ignored or denied. Killing them is permitted by law and even, in many cases, subsidized with public money.

This is the third distinguishing factor—the inequality of abortion. A whole class of innocent human beings is excluded from society's protection against lethal violence. Consequently, that class of innocent human beings is destroyed on an industrial scale. This is abortion in America. It's like nothing else.

That doesn't mean other issues and concerns aren’t important. Many issues are deeply important. But the scale, injustice, and inequality of abortion make it a uniquely serious problem in American society today.

Why the pro-life view is true

One could reject this conclusion, however, if one rejects the pro-life view of abortion. That view is based on three ideas.

The pro-life view, then, is that every member of the human family counts, including unborn children and their mothers, and that every one of us deserves the protection of the law. If this view is true, then abortion must be at the very top of our list of societal and political concerns.

And we should vote accordingly.

How elected officials make a difference

Some people wonder, though, whether elected officials actually affect abortion in a meaningful way. Do pro-life candidates make any difference at all once in office?

The answer is yes. The candidates we elect to office shape our laws and policies. State lawmakers pass abortion-related legislation. Governors choose to sign it into law or veto it. Governors also appoint judges who may decide the fate of such laws. Members of Congress pass legislation at the federal level, and senators vote to confirm or reject nominees to the federal judiciary, which wields the power to uphold abortion laws or wipe them out.

These laws and policies influence the practice of abortion. Research shows that laws that limit abortion, empower women, and increase protection for the unborn—even very modest ones (the kind permitted under restrictions currently imposed by the judiciary)—help reduce the incidence of abortion. Laws that expand or subsidize abortion, on the other hand, increase the number of unborn children who are killed.

The election of pro-life candidates, at both the state and federal levels, has led to enactment of pro-life laws. And those laws have saved many lives from abortion. The election of candidates who support abortion, by contrast, has helped thwart or reverse such efforts.

In Minnesota, for example, the election of pro-life legislators and a pro-life governor produced abortion-reducing laws like Woman's Right to Know and Positive Alternatives. Over the last eight years, a pro-life Legislature passed about a dozen other pro-life measures, but those bills were vetoed by a governor committed to unfettered abortion.

Elections have life-or-death consequences.

We should vote pro-life

If every human being matters, then human beings in utero matter. And that means abortion is a uniquely important problem in America today. It is a large-scale injustice and a rejection of human equality that is unlike other political issues.

The candidates we elect to office will either increase or decrease this injustice. They will act in a way that saves lives or costs them. They will make our society either more or less inclusive and protective of human rights.

We can, and we should, use our vote to make a positive difference. We should vote pro-life.

]]>Where do Angie Craig and Dean Phillips stand on the right to life?]]>Paul Starkhttps://www.mccl.org/single-post/2018/10/25/Where-do-Angie-Craig-and-Dean-Phillips-stand-on-the-right-to-lifehttps://www.mccl.org/single-post/2018/10/25/Where-do-Angie-Craig-and-Dean-Phillips-stand-on-the-right-to-lifeThu, 25 Oct 2018 22:27:44 +0000

Angie Craig is running against Jason Lewis to represent Minnesota's 2nd Congressional District in the U.S. House. Dean Phillips is challenging Erik Paulsen in Minnesota's 3rd Congressional District.

Both Craig and Phillips declined to respond to MCCL's candidate questionnaire. But their views are no secret.

Craig endorsed by four abortion advocacy groups

"I support full reproductive rights for women," Craig says on her website. "No one should ever come between a woman and her doctor when making these decisions." She adds: "I support Planned Parenthood and will continue to fight to protect their funding."

In another statement, Craig says, "I strongly support a woman’s right to choose abortion. ... I trust women."

Craig is endorsed by four different abortion advocacy organizations: NARAL Pro-Choice America; Planned Parenthood, the nation's leader practitioner of abortion; EMILY's List, a political action committee that supports only female Democrats who oppose limits on abortion; and Women Winning (on whose board Craig previously served), a Minnesota political action committee that also supports female candidates who oppose any protection for unborn children.

Phillips has 'fierce belief' in abortion leader Planned Parenthood

Phillips is not much different. He calls himself "very pro-choice." On his website, Phillips says he will "work to ensure that women have access to comprehensive, high-quality and affordable care—including reproductive care [i.e., abortion]—throughout their lives."

Phillips, like Craig, is endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood. After receiving the latter endorsement, Phillips tweeted, "Thank you to Planned Parenthood and all who share my fierce belief in its mission. I am honored, and eager to get to work."

Planned Parenthood, which performs hundreds of thousands of abortions each year, opposes any legal limits on abortion. It supports late abortions and taxpayer funding of abortion. Through the support of its allies in Congress, Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year.

Lewis, Paulsen vote to defend the vulnerable

Craig and Phillips's opponents, Jason Lewis and Erik Paulsen, offer a starkly different approach. They both provided 100 percent pro-life responses to MCCL's . They both have compiled 100 percent pro-life voting records in Congress.

Lewis and Paulsen have voted against taxpayer funding of elective abortions. They have voted to cut off federal funding to the abortion industry and redirect it to centers that provide health care to low-income women and men. They have voted to protect unborn children after 20 weeks, when babies can feel pain while they are dismembered and killed.

These are reasonable, mainstream, and humane positions that most Minnesotans support. But they are not positions we can expect from Angie Craig and Dean Phillips.

In Kermit Gosnell's Philadelphia abortion facility, dubbed a "house of horrors" by investigators, patients were treated by untrained staff using infected instruments, severed baby feet were collected in jars, infant corpses were stored in the fridge alongside lunches, and multiple women died.

Even more outrageous? Gosnell delivered hundreds of babies alive and then killed them by "snipping" their necks. He was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes and sentenced to life in prison in 2013.

The film Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer tells the true story of the investigation and trial. In one revealing courtroom scene, Gosnell's attorney cross-examines a late-term abortion practitioner who, unlike Gosnell, operates according to the rules.

d is larger, removal of the body intact after sucking out the brain to collapse the skull. If the child were (hypothetically) born alive, she says, she would provide "comfort care" and wait for the baby to die.

Are these legal, ordinary abortion procedures any better than Gosnell's approach of severing the spinal cord after delivery? That seemed to be the defense attorney's question to the jury.

It should also be directed to every pro-choice person.

The conventional pro-choice position holds that killing a young member of our species is morally permissible in utero but not ex utero. The challenge posed by the case of Kermit Gosnell (who, interestingly, describes himself as an adherent of "situational ethics," a theory founded by infanticide advocate Joseph Fletcher) is whether there's actually a morally significant difference.

Could the relevant difference simply be the location of the human being? No. Where someone is clearly has no bearing on what she is or whether she matters. A trip through the birth canal—like a trip across the border from Minnesota into Wisconsin—doesn't change an individual into something else.

Could bodily autonomy account for the difference? Maybe a woman has a right to do what she wants with anything inside her own body. But autonomy, though important, must still respect the rights of others. "Mere ownership," writes pro-choice philosopher Mary Anne Warren, "does not give me the right to kill innocent people whom I find on my property." And so it is with pregnancy.

Most people don't think pregnant women should use their autonomy to ingest drugs that cause birth defects. And if harming an unborn child is wrong, killing her by crushing and tearing her into pieces is even worse.

But developmental stage doesn't always correlate with birth. Some of the babies Gosnell delivered alive and then killed are younger than other babies legally killed in utero. How can we shudder at the acts of Gosnell while authorizing the destruction of those older children?

In any case, though, development doesn't determine whether someone has a right to life. Older people are not more valuable than younger people. Smaller people don't have a lesser right to exist than bigger people. Teenagers, with their superior mental and physical ability, don't matter more than toddlers.

Some people point to a child's "non-viability" (the inability to survive apart from her mother) as a reason to think that she may be killed. But some conjoined twins are "non-viable" apart from the body of the other—and that doesn't mean we may kill them. Dependence doesn't diminish a person's worth. And independence doesn't somehow confer human rights.

So what is the difference? Gosnell's killings were a grave injustice. Why isn't abortion also a grave injustice? What's the difference?

Many pro-choice thinkers acknowledge that there's no substantial moral difference. "The pro-life groups are right about one thing: the location of the baby inside or outside the womb cannot make such a crucial moral difference," write Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse. "We cannot coherently hold that it is all right to kill a fetus a week before birth, but as soon as the baby is born everything must be done to keep it alive."

The two ethicists add: "The solution, however, is not to accept the pro-life view that the fetus ... [has] the same moral status as yours or mine. The solution is the very opposite: to abandon the idea that all human life is of equal worth."

Singer, Kuhse, and a number of other prominent pro-choice moral philosophers believe infanticide, like abortion, can be appropriate. They don't think that Gosnell's newborn victims count as "persons" who have human rights.

Almost everyone else knows better. The solution to the challenge of Kermit Gosnell is not to abandon human equality. The solution is to fully embrace it.

Every child deserves better than that facility in Philadelphia. Every child deserves better than abortion.

U.S. Rep. Tim Walz is leaving Congress to run for governor. Jim Hagedorn and Dan Feehan are now seeking to fill his seat representing Minnesota's 1st Congressional District, which covers most of southern Minnesota.

Feehan declined to return MCCL's . But he has received endorsements from NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading practitioner of abortion.

In response to the latter endorsement, he tweeted, "Reproductive health is a personal matter that shouldn't be dictated by Washington politicians. I look forward to being [Planned Parenthood's] ally in Congress to protect reproductive freedom."

opposes any legal limits on abortion. It supports late abortions and taxpayer funding of abortion. Through the support of its allies in Congress, Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year.

Hagedorn, by contrast, provided a 100 percent pro-life response to MCCL's . He supports legal protection for unborn children and their mothers. He opposes taxpayer funding of abortion.

In a statement, Hagedorn says, "The protection of life, including the unborn, elderly, sick and disabled, from conception to natural death, is a strongly held core belief of mine, one that I am proud to make an important part of our campaign, as it reflects the views and values of residents of the First Congressional District."

"I will always stand up for the right to life," Hagedorn adds. "There is a clear difference between me and my opponent on this issue."

]]>Pete Stauber and Joe Radinovich stake out sharply different positions on the right to life]]>Paul Starkhttps://www.mccl.org/single-post/2018/10/11/Pete-Stauber-and-Joe-Radinovich-stake-out-sharply-different-positions-on-the-right-to-lifehttps://www.mccl.org/single-post/2018/10/11/Pete-Stauber-and-Joe-Radinovich-stake-out-sharply-different-positions-on-the-right-to-lifeThu, 11 Oct 2018 21:50:01 +0000

U.S. Rep. Rick Nolan, who represents Minnesota's 8th District (a large area that encompasses northeastern Minnesota) in Congress, will retire at the end of the current term. The election to fill his seat on Nov. 6 pits Joe Radinovich against Pete Stauber.

They have staked out sharply different positions on the right to life.

Radinovich spent two years in the state Legislature and produced a mixed record. He voted in favor of taxpayer funding of abortion. Abortion practitioners bill Minnesota taxpayers about $1 million each year for several thousand elective abortions. Radinovich also voted against measures to prevent mandatory abortion coverage in MNsure health plans.

After leaving office, Radinovich worked as campaign manager for Rep. Nolan, a strong supporter of abortion in Congress.

Now Radinovich is making his own run to replace Nolan. His campaign website calls the killing of human beings in utero "health care" and says, "Now, more than ever, we need to fight to protect women’s right to choose [abortion]." He has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading practitioner of abortion.

Radinovich declined to return MCCL's .

Stauber says every life is worthy

By contrast, Pete Stauber, a retired police officer and current county commission

er, provided a 100 percent pro-life response to MCCL's . On his website, he pledges to "always be a strong and constant voice for the right to life."

Earlier this year, in recognition of World Down Syndrome Day, Stauber wrote an article about his son Isaac, who has Down syndrome. "Every day with Isaac is a cause for celebration," he says, "whether he is surprising us with something new he learned or the happiness and joy he brings into every room he walks into."

"Being different shouldn't be a crime punishable by death. After all, we are all different," Stauber writes. "I support life from conception to natural death and I will fight the rhetoric that one person's life is not worthy just because they are not what we thought we wanted."

In a recent New Yorkerarticle about the political views of some younger evangelicals, Eliza Griswold describes the position on abortion of one such Christian, journalist and author Jonathan Merritt:

"I'm personally pro-life," he told me. "But would I pull a lever and overturn Roe v. Wade? The answer is no." Merritt's view is common among his fellow-believers: that abortion is wrong, and there are ways to work on reducing it without overturning the law of the land.

Abortion is wrong, according to Merritt's view, but it should be publicly permitted. This "personally pro-life" position can be understood in two possible ways. Both versions badly distort what it really means to be pro-life.

The wrong of abortion

First, those who hold the "personally pro-life" view may not take very seriously the idea that abortion is wrong. They may, for example, see unborn children as less valuable than older human beings. This might make abortion slightly wrong but not wrong enough to warrant government interference.

But that isn't the pro-life position. The pro-life position holds that all human beings are morally equal by virtue of their shared humanity. It doesn't divide humanity into those who matter and those who matter a little or not at all. That's what the standard pro-choice position does.

But the pro-life position isn't that we don't like abortion or simply wouldn't make that choice ourselves. It's that abortion is actually wrong, whether we like it or not. No one says, "I'm personally against sex trafficking, but that's just my own view. I can't push it on everyone else."

Trafficking human beings is wrong for everybody. And killing children in utero is too.

The role of government

Second, those who hold the "personally pro-life" position may do so because they don't appreciate the proper role of government or law in the context of abortion. Abortion is seriously and objectively wrong, they think, but it should be allowed as a matter of public policy.

But one role government should play—a role that seems uncontroversial—is to safegua

rd basic human rights and, in particular, prevent lethal violence against the innocent. The United States was literally founded on the idea that "governments are instituted" to "secure [the unalienable] rights" of "all [human beings]."

The pro-life position is that abortion is a violation of basic human rights. It's violence against innocent human beings. If that position is true, then abortion is precisely the kind of act that ought to be legally prohibited. It doesn't matter if you're a socialist, a progressive, a conservative, or a hard-core libertarian. People of all political stripes (except, presumably, anarchists) agree that the law, whatever else it should or should not do, ought to at least protect people from unjust killing.

That's why the "personally pro-life" view is, as philosopher Julie Kirsch writes (with some understatement), "puzzling." The reason abortion is wrong is also the reason it should not be permitted.

Some people say that, rather than try to change the law, pro-life advocates should pursue measures to reduce the "need" for abortion or address its root causes. We should certainly try to reduce abortions through various avenues (as the pro-life movement has done). But this is no substitute for equal protection under the law. Nobody argues that we should legalize child abuse and just focus on its "underlying causes." Unborn children, like born children, deserve protection.

Many people say, though, that abortion should remain legal because laws against it don't work anyway or produce terrible outcomes. This appears to be Jonathan Merritt's own rationale for holding the "personally pro-life" view. In response to criticism on Twitter, he suggests that making abortion illegal wouldn't prevent abortion and would cause the deaths of women from coat-hanger abortions.

Second, Merritt's view still can't overcome the justice problem. If abortion is unjust, the risks some people might assume by choosing to participate in the injustice are not a very good reason to make it legal. And if unborn children deserve protection under the law, then any difficulties in upholding that law are not a very good reason to abandon those children to industrial-scale dismemberment and destruction.

If a government ought to exist, and if it ought to protect basic human rights, then Merritt's position falls apart.

What it means to be pro-life

The pro-life position, then, can't just be "personal." It is inherently public.

It holds that unborn children have a right to life and that abortion is a breach of justice. Rights are entitlements. They demand the respect of others. Justice is giving people their due and treating them how they deserve to be treated.

All of this is public. It's about our society. It's about how we treat each other.

The pro-life position is also public in one other way. It's not a mere belief—it's a belief that entails public action. That's because if we don't seek justice, if we don't seek to defend the defenseless, then we're not acting as if we really believe the defenseless deserve defending in the first place.

To be pro-life is to believe that every human being matters—and to act accordingly.

Here's the poll question: "Roe v. Wade was the Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal. Would you like to see that abortion law kept in place, modified in some way, or overturned so that abortion is illegal?"

There are two problems with this question. First, it describes Roe as merely "the Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal." But Roe didn't just make abortion legal (that's what a legislature would do by passing a law). Roe ruled that the U.S. Constitution requires legalized abortion. It said that abortion must be legal, whether Americans like it or not. It effectively banned the American people and their elected representatives from providing legal protection against abortion for unborn children.

Roe also said that abortion must be legal not just early in pregnancy or for particular reasons (a policy many Americans would support), but later in pregnancy, too, and for any reason whatsoever. Indeed, abortion polls consistently show that a strong majority of Americans actually disagree with the policy Roe created.

A 2018 Gallup poll, for example, found that only 45 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal "for any reason" in the first trimester (as Roe mandated). Only 28 percent of Americans think abortion should be generally legal in the second trimester (as Roe mandated). An

d a majority of 53 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances or in no circumstances. Roe said abortion has to be legal in every circumstance.

Roe, in short, is not and has never been consistent with the views of a majority of Americans. That is almost certainly true with respect to Minnesotans as well.

Second, the poll question says that overturning Roe would mean that "abortion is illegal." Nope, that's false. Overturning Roewould simply mean that the Supreme Court isn't dictating abortion policy any more. It would mean that states have a choice again. (In Minnesota, there would be no immediate change in abortion policy at all, and the ability of the Legislature to determine policy would still be severely limited because of a 1995 state Supreme Court decision.)

Many Americans who support abortion (and no doubt many Minnesotans who responded to the poll by saying they want Roe kept in place) favor legalized abortion only in the first trimester, or only in certain circumstances. That position is currently prohibited precisely because of Roe v. Wade. So, ironically, only by overturning Roe could our laws reflect that ordinary pro-choice position.

Polls about Roe are usually not very informative because many or most Americans don't know what Roe did, they don't know the far-reaching extent of Roe, and they don't know what overturning Roe would do. And the poll questions themselves often contribute to the misunderstanding of the people being polled.

Planned Parenthood portrays itself as an indispensable provider of women's health care. But what do the facts tell us?

Year after year, Planned Parenthood makes hundreds of millions of dollars by performing hundreds of thousands of abortions while providing fewer and fewer non-abortion services. It vigorously seeks to defeat public policies that would limit abortion in any way. And it is heavily subsidized by American taxpayers.

Here's what everyone needs to know about Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood and abortion

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) performed 321,384 abortions in 2016,* according to the group's 2016-2017 annual report. That makes Planned Parenthood, by far, the leading practitioner of abortion in the United States.

In recent years, the annual abortion total at Planned Parenthood has remained fairly stable (ranging from about 320,000 to 334,000) even as overall abortions in the country have dropped significantly. Most of Planned Parenthood's other services, by contrast, have consistently declined. Contraceptive services have dropped 30 percent since 2009. Cancer screenings (mostly manual breast exams and pap tests) have dropped 64 percent. "Prenatal services" (which were always very rare) have plummeted 81 percent. "Total services" provided by Planned Parenthood are down 15 percent.

Among the three pregnancy-related services Planned Parenthood provides women who are already pregnant (abortion, adoption referral, prenatal services), abortion accounts for 97 percent. For every one adoption referral, Planned Parenthood performs 83 abortions. The group is 41 times more likely to perform an abortion than to provide any prenatal care.

Planned Parenthood claims that abortion makes up only 3 percent of what it does, but this figure is highly deceptive. Planned Parenthood calculates the number by unbundling its a

ctivities and counting each element separately. A woman's abortion visit, for example, may include a pregnancy test, an STI test, birth control pills, and more—and Planned Parenthood counts them all as separate services (even though abortion is the only reason for the visit and

"The evidence suggests," concludes a 2018 study published in the Open Journal of Preventive Medicine, "that [Planned Parenthood] has had a long-term inflationary effect on the incidence and prevalence of abortion in the U.S."

Planned Parenthood and money

Planned Parenthood took in a record $1.46 billion in revenue during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017. That's an increase of more than $100 million over the previous year and a 39 percent rise since 2009**—even as the organization has provided fewer services to fewer clients. During just the last five years, Planned Parenthood's revenue has exceeded its expenses by $420 million.

In the year ending June 2017, Planned Parenthood received $544 million in government reimbursements and grants. Although federal dollars are not supposed to directly fund abortion (except in rare cases), the money Planned Parenthood receives is fungible and serves to support its abortion activities. Moreover, many states, including Minnesota, directly reimburse Planned Parenthood and other abortion centers for elective abortions through their Medicaid programs.

Planned Parenthood and politics

Planned Parenthood's political arms oppose any restrictions on abortion considered by Congress, state legislatures, and the courts. Planned Parenthood opposes limits on late abortions, partial-birth and dismemberment abortions, and taxpayer funding of abortions. It opposes parental involvement (for minors) and informed consent requirements before women undergo abortion. It opposes licensing and inspection of abortion facilities. And—perhaps most of all—it opposes any reduction of its own taxpayer funding.

Planned Parenthood also spends heavily to elect candidates to office who favor unlimited abortion and support funding for Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has become, as the Washington Postreports, "a powerful political juggernaut."

Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS), the regional PPFA affiliate, operates Minnesota’s largest abortion facility in St. Paul. (PPMNS recently joined with another affiliate to become Planned Parenthood North Central States.) The center performed a record-high 6,234 abortions in 2017, according to the Minnesota Department of Health—more than three times that of the state's next highest practitioner.

Contrary to state and national abortion trends, abortions at PPMNS have consistently gone up. As the overall state abortion total decreased 26 percent from 2007 to 2017, Planned Parenthood increased its abortions by 59 percent. In 2007, Planned Parenthood performed 28

percent of Minnesota abortions; 10 years later, it performed 61 percent.

But while Planned Parenthood's abortion numbers continue to rise, it provides fewer non-abortion services. PPMNS's contraceptive services have dropped 28 percent since 2013, according to the organization's annual reports. PPMNS's number of HPV vaccines has fallen 51 percent. And its cancer screenings have plummeted 55 percent.****

In the year ending June 30, 2017, PPMNS generated revenue of more than $47 million, including more than $5 million from the government. The group benefits from Minnesota's policy of Medicaid-funded abortion, which allows Planned Parenthood to offer "free" (state-funded) abortions to low-income women. PPMNS a record-high $521,596 for a record-high 2,322 abortions in 2016, according to the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Planned Parenthood has increased its tax-funded abortions by 168 percent since 2011.

Planned Parenthood and women's health

Planned Parenthood claims that it is essential to women's health. But it provides a very limited range of actual health services. Far better alternatives are available for women who need care.

Federally qualified health centers, unlike Planned Parenthood, provide comprehensive health care to low-income women and men. They also outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics 16-to-1. If women's health care (rather than abortion) is a priority of government, then public funding should be redirected from Planned Parenthood to these full-service health centers. That's what federal proposals to defund Planned Parenthood have sought to do.

Planned Parenthood is in the business of ending the lives of human beings before they are born. And it is a profitable business. But it does not deserve our support or our tax dollars.

* The 2016 data span October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016.

** The fiscal year ending June 30, 2010.

*** Planned Parenthood tried to dismiss the videos by claiming they are deceptively edited. Forensic analysis by an independent firm determined that the raw footage is authentic, however, and that the full-length videos only exclude "non-pertinent" footage.

"My record is so pro-choice," Tim Walz bragged in June at the DFL state convention, "Nancy Pelosi asked me if I should tone it down."

He wasn't exaggerating.

Walz has represented Minnesota's 1st congressional district in the U.S. House since 2007. Now he's running for governor.

If Walz is elected on Nov. 6, any increased protection for unborn children in Minnesota—even the most modest limitations on abortion—will be nearly impossible for the next four years.

Tim Walz's no-limits abortion record

During Walz's ten

ure in Congress, he compiled a zero percent pro-life voting record (zero pro-life votes out of 50), according to National Right to Life. He repeatedly voted against protection for unborn childre

n after 20 weeks, when they can experience pain while being dismembered. He repeatedly voted for taxpayer funding of elective abortions.

He repeatedly voted for taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading performer and promoter of abortion. And he repeatedly voted to fund research requiring the destruction of human beings during their earliest developmental stages.

Walz also co-sponsored a bill (H.R. 1322) that would invalidate nearly all state and federal limits on abortion, including waiting periods, informed consent laws, and protection for unborn children late in pregnancy.

Technically, Walz did cast one pro-life vote—a vote earlier this year to protect babies born alive during abortions. But he actually meant to vote against it (and in 2015 he had voted against the same measure). He tweeted after the vote, "Accidentally voted for HR4712 today. It was an honest mistake. I meant to vote NO, as I did on an identical bill last Congress. My apologies for the confusion. I'll keep fighting for women's access to health care."

H.R. 4712, in fact, had precisely no bearing at all on "women's access to health care." It didn't even have any bearing on abortion or on access to abortion. It merely said that babies who are born alive in the context of abortion must be treated the same as all other already-born babies who are the same age—they may not be killed, neglected, or abandoned to d

ie. Walz apparently opposed such protection strongly enough that he wanted to publicly correct the record.

At an MPR News debate on Aug.10, Walz was asked if, as governor, he would "sign or allow any bills to become law that would put new restrictions on abortion." He answered "absolutely not" and called himself a "vocal opponent of allowing anything like that to even start to permeate our discussion because the expansion of those services is the direction we should be going."

Walz's campaign website simply states, "Tim believes in a woman's right to choose and has a 100% voting record with Planned Parenthood. He will continue this support as Governor." His candidacy has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood's Action Fund and NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota.

Jeff Johnson is the pro-life alternative

By contrast, Walz's opponent in the November election, Jeff Johnson, provided a 100 percent pro-life response to (Walz declined to respond to the

questionnaire). Johnson is a Hennepin County commissioner, small business owner and lawyer, and former representative in the Minnesota House.

During his time at the Legislature, Johnson voted for key pro-life laws such as Woman's Right to Know, which ensures informed consent prior to abortion, and Positive Alternatives, which provides practical support and alternatives to abortion for pregnant women facing difficult circumstances. He also voted to stop taxpayer funding of abortion.

"There is no more important issue than protecting innocent life," Johnson writes on his website. "I am Pro-Life and believe in the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death."

The importance of a pro-life governor

Over the last eight years, Gov. Mark Dayton has vetoed pro-life bill after pro-life bill. These measures would have increased protection for the vulnerable and saved lives. But they didn't become law for the sole reason that Minnesota didn't have a pro-life governor.

Abortion ends the life of a human being at the embryonic or fetal stage of her development. Is this killing morally permissible? Or is it an injustice?

More than 150 years ago, a Boston physician named Horatio R. Storer pointed to the heart of the issue. "The whole question," he observed, "turns on ... the real nature of the foetus in utero."

Does the unborn child have a right not to be intentionally killed? Does she matter like we matter? Does she count as one of us?

Almost all arguments offered in defense of abortion relate to this fundamental question in one of three ways. Some arguments just assume that unborn children don’t matter. Some arguments try to show that unborn children don’t matter. And some arguments contend that unborn children are actually beside the point.

Here's why each of these types is mistaken—and why children in the womb deserve our respect and protection.

Arguments that assume unborn children don't matter

Many popular arguments only make sense if unborn children don't really matter—if they don't have the kind of value and right to life that other human beings have. Consider these examples.

Freedom. Abortion defenders say that women have a right to choose, or that we should "trust women," or that we should respect their moral agency and let them decide. People have the right to choose to do lots of things, but there are some things that aren't okay. No one has the right to decide to kill a teenager, for example, because teenagers are valuable human beings who have human rights. If unborn children are also valuable human beings, then we likewise may not kill them.

Circumstances. Supporters of abortion frequently point to the difficult circumstances that pregnant women face. But if unborn children have a right to life, like children who have already been born, then killing them is no more justified in tough socioeconomic circumstances than killing born children in those same circumstances.

Consequences. People sometimes say that prohibiting abortion would produce terrible consequences, such as the deaths of many women from illegal abortions. But no one would argue that we should legalize infanticide in order to make it safer and easier for desperate parents to get rid of their newborn children. If unborn children also deserve protection, then (alleged) negative consequences aren't a good reason to make it legal to end their lives.

Equality. Legalized abortion is necessary for women's equality, some people argue, because the challenges of pregnancy and childbirth fall uniquely on women and not men. But the challenges of caring for 10-year-old children fall on the parents of 10-year-olds and not on everyone else—and laws against killing or abandoning such children are clearly still justified. If unborn children matter, like 10-year-olds, then the same is true of laws protecting them.

Tolerance. Some people say that personal opposition to abortion shouldn't be imposed on others. But if abortion unjustly takes the life of a innocent person, then society shouldn't allow it. No one would say, "I'm personally opposed to withholding basic care from nursing home patients, but I don't want to impose that view on everyone else."

None of these arguments, then, would justify the killing of born human beings. If unborn children deserve the same respect, then these arguments don't justify killing them either.

Arguments that try to show unborn children don't matter

Other arguments in defense of abortion try to actually show that unborn children don't matter—that they are different from the rest of us in some way that is morally significant. And that's why killing them is permissible.

One way to argue for this view is to claim that unborn children aren't even human beings (in the biological sense of the term). But that's empirically false. The science of embryology shows that human embryos and fetuses are living human organisms—members of the specie

s Homo sapiens—at the embryonic and fetal stages of life.

A second approach is to argue that although unborn children are biologically human, they do not have the same value and right to life as older human beings—they are not yet "persons" like we are. But the differences between born and unborn human beings simply aren't relevant to whether or not an individual bea

rs a right to life.

Unborn children may look different, for example, but appearance has nothing to do with value. Unborn children are less physically and mentally developed, but toddlers are less developed than teenagers, and that doesn't make them any less important. Unborn children are dependent on someone else, but so are newborn children and many people who are elderly, sick, and disabled.

One version of this view says that pregnant women have a right to do whatever they want with whatever is inside their body. But autonomy is limited when someone else's body is also involved. Most people agree, for example, that pregnant women shouldn't ingest drugs that cause birth defects. And if harming unborn children is wrong, then killing them (through abortion) is even worse.

Another version contends that just as we may refuse to donate an organ to save someone else's life, a pregnant woman may refuse to let an unborn child use her body to survive. Abortion, however, isn't merely the withdrawing of bodily support—it is intentional and active killing, often by dismemberment, which violates the child's right to life (the right not to be intentionally killed) and right to bodily integrity. The father and mother, moreover, bear responsibility for the ordinary care of their child because they brought her into existence.

Bodily autonomy is real and important. But it can't justify intentional killing or wipe away our obligations to those who depend on us.

Arguments for abortion can't get around the truth

Almost every statement in support of abortion falls into one of these three categories. They are fatally flawed.

Both bodily rights arguments and appeals to freedom, circumstances, consequences, equality, and tolerance can't get around the heart of the issue—whether unborn children count as members of the human family deserving of our respect and protection.

And arguments for excluding unborn children from the human family can't get around two stubborn truths. The first is a fact of science: Human embryos and fetuses are human beings. The second is a principle of justice: Every human being has an equal right to life.

That's why there's no getting around the conclusion, as Horatio R. Storer put it in 1860, that killing children in utero is a "violation of … all reason, all pity, all mercy, all love."

"I'm … the only senator who has ever worked at Planned Parenthood," said Tina Smith recently on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, where she was protesting the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh (whom she fears may "cast that decisive fifth vote to overturn Roe [v. Wade]").

Smith served as a vice president at Planned Parenthood's Minnesota affiliate. It's a job about which she's not afraid to boast. She told the Star Tribune in January that she's "very proud" of the organization's work.

Planned Parenthood ended the lives of 6,234 human beings in Minnesota last year.

During Smith's tenure in the abortion industry (2003-2006), Planned Parenthood increased its annual abortion total by 22 percent and became the state's leading abortion practitioner (it has only grown its dominance of the market in the years since).

Smith also lobbied against Minnesota's Woman's Right to Know law, which ensu

res informed consent prior to abortion, and Minnesota's Positive Alternatives program, which empowers women who want to keep their babies by providing support and alternatives.

Sarah Stoesz, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood in Minnesota, later told the Star Tribune: "[Smith] really built our education and outreach efforts. She's got a pretty strong legacy around here."

Smith went on to serve as Gov. Mark Dayton's chief of staff and then his lieutenant governor—a period during which Dayton vetoed numerous pro-life bills—before Dayton appointed her to replace Al Franken in the U.S. Senate following Franken's resignation.

Since taking office early this year, Smith has voted against protection for unborn children after 20 weeks, when they can experience pain while being dismembered. She also voted against the confirmation of former Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras to the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, despite his bipartisan support (including support by Sen. Amy Klobuchar) and a "unanimously well qualified" rating by the American Bar Association.

And she has promised to vote against Kavanaugh's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Kavanaugh, a federal judge whose experience and qualifications are considered beyond reproach, believes that judges "must interpret the law, not make the law," he explained in his post-nomination remarks.

Smith is now running to keep her Senate seat in a special election. Her Republican-endorsed opponent is state Sen. Karin Housley. Housley has consistently voted for pro-life measures in the state Legislature, and she provided a 100 percent pro-life response to MCCL's (Smith did not respond to the questionnaire).

"Life is a gift, and it should be protected," Housley writes on her website. "As a mother and grandmother, I believe every effort should be made to protect and honor life."

This article first appeared in the June-August 2018 issue of MCCL News.

When Lori Swanson, Minnesota's current attorney general, decided to run for governor, Keith Ellison quickly jumped into the race to fill her position.

Ellison has represented Minnesota's 5th congressional district (which includes Minneapolis) in the U.S. House since 2007. His record and his agenda for the attorney general's office should deeply concern pro-life Minnesotans.

Ellison has compiled a zero percent pro-life voting record during his 12 years in Congress, according to National Right to Life—including numerous votes in favor of late-term abortion, taxpayer funding of abortion, and taxpayer funding of abortion industry leader Planned Parenthood.

Minnesota's attorney general is the state's chief law enforcement official, but Ellison suggests that, if elected to the job, he might enforce only those laws with which he agrees. S

hortly after entering the race, he "said … he won't defend new abortion restrictions in court if state lawmakers approve them," MPR Newsreported.

"I find that there is a right to reproductive health"—a term used in this context as a euphemism for a right to kill human beings before they are born—"in the Minnesota constitution and the federal constitution," Ellison said at a July 2 news conference, "so if the state Legislature tries to make me to defend an unconstitutional law, I wouldn't be able to do that."

Ellison has been endorsed for attorney general by NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota. "We must be prepared to use every tool we have to protect access to legal abortion in Minnesota," said the group's executive director. "Keith Ellison has demonstrated time and time again that he is willing to fight for reproductive rights."

Ellison is running against former state Rep. Doug Wardlow, the Republican-endorsed candidate for attorney general. Wardlow, a graduate of Georgetown's law school, has practiced constitutional law with Alliance Defending Freedom, a pro-life legal advocacy group.

Wardlow provided a 100 percent pro-life response to MCCL's (Ellison did not respond to the questionnaire).

On his website, Wardlow draws a sharp contrast with Ellison by promising to defend laws "passed [to] protect the lives of unborn children."

A vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court—and the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill it—has produced endless talk about the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Court decision that eliminated laws protecting unborn children from being killed through abortion.

"The crisis is here," warns the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. "[O]ur constitutional right to access abortion is at risk." An NPR reporter (rather subtly) calls this nomination "the end of the world as we know it."

The Court could indeed reverse Roe outright at some point in the future—or scale it back gradually over time as the justices consider and uphold new abortion limits. No one knows for sure what will happen.

But a lot of misunderstandings surround the possible overruling of Roe. Here are four big ones that deserve correction.

Myth #1: Most Americans support Roe

"Abortion rights is the majority position," proclaims Katha Pollitt in the New York Times. "Sixty-seven percent of Americans do not want Roe to be overturned."

Journalists and advocates often cite polls that find such a result, but they are highly misleading. Many (probably most) Americans don't realize the scope of Roe. Many wrongly think that overturning the decision would simply make abortion illegal (see Myth #2). And many poll questions about Roe badly mischaracterize it.

What did Roe do? It decided that abortion must be allowed for any reason in the first trimester of pregnancy. It also decided that abortion must be allowed for any reason in the second trimester. And it decided that abortion must be allowed for (at the very least) "health" reasons in the third trimester—and "health" reasons were understood (in Roe's companion case of Doe v. Bolton

And what do Americans support? Definitely not the legal regime created by Roe. A 2018 Gallup poll found that only 45 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal "for any reason" in the first trimester (as Roe mandated). Only 28 percent of Americans think abortion should be generally legal in the second trim

ester (as Roe mandated). Only 13 percent think it should be generally legal in the third trimester (as Roe effectively mandated).

Moreover, according to Gallup, a majority of 53 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances or in no circumstances. (Gallup has consistently found that a majority take this position.) Roe said abortion has to be legal in every circumstance.

But do Americans at least support the judicial philosophy that produced Roe? Not really. A 2017 poll, for example, found that a majority of 52 percent of Americans think Supreme Court justices should interpret the Constitution "as it was originally written" rather than substitute their own policy preferences in its place.

Roe, in short, is not and has never been consistent with the views of a majority of Americans.

Myth #2: Overturning Roe would make all abortions illegal

"Ending Roe," warns the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, "means we have a country where abortion is illegal." That's not accurate.

Prior to 1973, the American people, through their elected representatives, determined the kind of abortion laws they wanted. With Roe, the Court took that power away from them by ruling that the U.S. Constitution includes a right to abortion—that it requires legalized abortion (and thus forbids legal protection of unborn children) regardless of what the people want. This nullified the democratically decided abortion laws of all 50 states.

So what would overturning Roe do? It would give back to Americans their legislative authority. In the immediate wake of that change, some states would keep policies of abortion-on-demand. Other states would provide very substantial legal protection for unborn children. Many states would fall somewhere in the middle.

When Roe is gone, abortion policy will be left to the democratic process, as most important public issues are. It will be up to us.

Myth #3: Overturning Roe would have nightmarish consequences for women

Defenders of abortion claim that all sorts of awful things would befall America if Roe were discarded.

The most frequent claim is that many women would die by undergoing dangerous, illegal abortions. "Overturning Roe would take us back to the days of women being seriously injured and dying because they can't get basic medical care," says U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. "We've come too far to go back to those days." (By "basic medical care," Feinstein means abortion, not basic medical care, which would be unaffected by the reversal of Roe.)

History, however, tells a different story. Antibiotics and other medical advances produced a dramatic decline in abortion-related maternal deaths through the middle of the 20th century. This decline occurred before Roe and the nationwide legalization of abortion, which had no apparent effect on maternal mortality rates.

Indeed, a wealth of worldwide evidence shows that a high standard of maternal health simply does not require legalized abortion. Chile reduced maternal mortality to a level comparable to that of the U.S., for example, while also strengthening legal protection for unborn children. Maternal health in Ireland exceeded that of England and much of the developed world even as abortion was illegal.

There's no evidence whatsoever for the claim that new limits on abortion in the U.S. would lead to some kind of health disaster.

Another common worry is that women who have illegal abortions would be sent to prison. NARAL says, for example, that overturning Roe and prohibiting abortion would "criminalize women" and "punish women."

That's just false. Before Roe, when unborn children were largely protected by law, women were virtually never prosecuted for illegal abortions. There were good reasons for that (culpability and practical considerations are important factors). And this would remain the case in any post-Roe world that restores protection for unborn children.

Myth #4: The Court should uphold Roe because it's precedent

Politicians who support Roe often appeal to the idea that judges ought to adhere to past decisions (a practice called stare decisis). But everyone, including every pro-Roe senator and every member of the Supreme Court, agrees that at least some mistaken precedents should be overturned (and many have been). So should the precedent of Roe be overturned?

One crucial factor in the decision to overrule a past mistake is just how bad and constitutionally groundless it is. Roe is historically bad and has no constitutional grounding at all. The Constitution doesn't mention abortion, and the Court has never come up with a plausible or even coherent reason to think a right to abortion is implied. That's because it obviously isn't. In fact, the Americans who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment—the part of the Constitution from which Roe tried to derive an abortion right—also voted (during the same era) to e

"[Roe] is bad because it is bad constitutional law," concludes the eminent legal scholar John Hart Ely (who supported legalized abortion as a matter of public policy), "or rather bec

ause it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

The "stability" of a precedent is another factor that can influence the decision to overturn. The Court's abortion jurisprudence, even after 45 years, is remarkably unstable. It frequently changes as the Court considers new c

ases and rules on new abortion-related questions. The Court has sometimes reversed itself on those questions or applied its abortion principles (such as Casey's "undue burden" standard) in inconsistent ways. The late Justice Antonin Scalia mockingly referred to this ongoing project as "the abortion umpiring business" and the "enterprise of devising an Abortion Code."

"We should get out of this area [of making abortion policy]," Scalia told the rest of the Court, "where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining."

Why Roe must go

Judge Kavanaugh himself hit on the key issue in a 2017 speech. "[J]udges are confined to interpreting and applying the Constitution and laws as they are written and not as we might wish they were written," he explained. "[C]hanges to the Constitution and laws are to be made by the people through the amendment process and, where appropriate, through the legislative process—not by the courts snatching that constitutional or legislative authority for themselves."

The Supreme Court should overturn Roe because it's a lawless decision that snatched authority away from the American people. But Roe isn't merely that. It also produced a profoundly unjust legal regime with morally catastrophic results. It banned the protection from lethal violence of a whole class of innocent human beings. Some 60 million of those human beings have now been legally killed.

Reversing Roe and returning abortion policy to the legislatures will enable much greater protection of unborn children. It will at least allow for the possibility of equal protection of the human rights of all members of the human family. It will, ultimately, save millions of lives.

If the end of Roe v. Wade is "the end of the world as we know it," it's also the beginning of a more inclusive one.

ST. PAUL — Abortions in Minnesota increased slightly in 2017 thanks to the state's leading performer and promoter of abortion. Planned Parenthood grew its own abortion total by 11 percent while non-Planned Parenthood abortion centers saw a 10 percent drop.

"Planned Parenthood likes to take credit when abortions go down," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "That's simply bizarre, because abortion is Planned Parenthood's business, and Planned Parenthood is dominating the market. No organization or group does more to keep abortion numbers high."

The Minnesota Department of Health's (MDH) annual Abortion Report, released today, shows that 10,177 abortions took place in the state last year, a three percent increase since 2015, when abortions hit their lowest level since 1974. Despite the recent plateau, abortions in Minnesota have dropped 47 percent since their high in 1980.

Planned Parenthood, however, performed a record-high 6,234 abortions in 2017—giving the organization a record-high 61 percent share of the state's abortion market. It has increased its abortions by 58 percent just since 2008 (overall abortions in the state have dropped 21 percent over the same period) and doubled its market share.

Whole Woman's Health, the second leading provider of abortion, performed 2,012 abortions in 2017—a 15 percent decline compared to the previous year.

The 2017 data show some positive developments. Minor abortions dropped from 292 in 2016 to 248 in 2017, just 2.4 percent of all abortions. With the help of Minnesota's 1981 parental notification law, abortions on minors have plummeted 89 percent from their 1980 peak of 2,327.

A total of 11,338 women received Woman's Right to Know informed consent information in 2017. That means 1,161 women opted against abortion after receiving information about risks and alternatives.

“Woman's Right to Know and Minnesota's other pro-life laws continue to empower women and save lives from abortion,” said Fischbach. "But more pro-life measures are needed to reduce abortions further and counteract Planned Parenthood's influence. That's why getting a pro-life governor—someone who will sign pro-life legislation into law—is so crucial."

Full reports for 2017 and prior years are available at the MDH website.

The following is additional information concerning "Induced Abortions in Minnesota January – December 2017: Report to the Legislature," released June 29, 2018, by the Minnesota Department of Health:

The total number of reported abortions performed in Minnesota since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion on demand: 639,008

Chemical (non-surgical) abortion is becoming more and more prevalent as an abortion method. Chemical abortions using the drug mifepristone (RU486) accounted for an all-time high of 39% of all abortions in 2017—up from 35% in 2016

Suction was still the most common abortion procedure, used in 53% of abortions (down from 56% in 2016). Dilation and evacuation (dismemberment) abortion, the primary second-trimester method, was used in 696 abortions (down from 861 in 2016)

The number of abortions at 20 weeks gestation or later fell from 241 in 2016 to 223 in 2017. The latest abortion was performed at 26 weeks (same as 2016)

65 different people performed abortions in 2017 (a decline from 118 in 2016). Minnesota's 5 abortion centers performed 99% of all abortions in the state

41% of women who received an abortion in 2017 had at least one prior abortion (up from 40% in 2016)

Reasons women gave for their abortions (more than one reason could be given):

Less than 1% rape or incest (consistent with past years)70% “does not want children at this time” (same percentage as 2016)24% economic reasons (down from 29% in 2016)

Complications:

75 complications were reported at the time of the abortion procedure, including cervical laceration, hemorrhage, and uterine perforation (67 were reported in 2016)57 post-operative complications were reported, including hemorrhage, infection, and "incomplete termination of pregnancy" (89 were reported in 2016)

3 abortions in 2017 resulted in a live birth; in none of the cases did the infant survive.

ST. PAUL — The number of abortions in Minnesota increased in 2017 for the second consecutive year, according to data released today by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The 2017 total of 10,177 abortions is the highest since 2012.

"This recent increase is contrary to Minnesota's long-term trend of declining abortions," said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). "Thanks to factors like pro-life education, ultrasounds, pregnancy care centers, and pro-life laws like Woman's Right to Know and Positive Alternatives, women are more likely to reject abortion today than in the past. But the slight rise over the last two years suggests that the abortion numbers are beginning to plateau."

Abortions have dropped in seven of the last 10 years and have fallen 26 percent since 2007 and 47 percent since 1980. But the abortion number has risen 3 percent since 2015. The abortion rate rose from 8.4 (abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age) in 2015 to 8.7 in 2017.

Planned Parenthood, the industry leader, increased its abortion total in 2017 by 11 percent to a record-high 6,234. Abortions in 2017 at facilities other than Planned Parenthood actually declined by 10 percent compared to the previous year.

"Planned Parenthood manages to perform more and more abortions every year," said Fischbach. "Planned Parenthood's abortion business is working hard to keep abortion numbers much higher than they would otherwise be."

The Legislature has passed several MCCL-backed pro-life bills in recent years only to see them vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton. They include legislation to end the taxpayer funding of abortion and a bill this year to ensure that women are given the chance to see their ultrasounds prior to abortion.

"Pro-life laws reduce abortions, help and empower women, and save the lives of unborn children," Fischbach said. "But to get more of these lifesaving measures enacted, we need a pro-life governor, and we need to maintain a pro-life Legislature."

MCCL will issue a more in-depth analysis of MDH’s 2017 Abortion Report later today.

"Restricting access to abortion," tweets the World Health Organization (WHO), "does not reduce the number of abortions."

Supporters of legalized abortion frequently make this claim. Legalizing abortion doesn't increase the number of abortions, they say. It just makes them safer for women. Likewise, bans or limits on abortion don't prevent abortions from happening. They only make the abortions that happen more dangerous.

The idea that abortion restrictions are incompatible with a high standard of maternal health is demonstrably false. But what about the claim that restrictions are ineffective? Do laws actually work to stop abortion?

Abortion laws are effective

Abortion advocates like WHO point to places that don't permit the practice and yet (according to often-speculative estimates) have abortion rates similar to those of places with abortion on demand. "Women living under the most restrictive laws ... have abortions at about the same rate as those living where the procedure is available without restriction as to reason," concludes a recent report by the Guttmacher Institute, the abortion industry's primary research organization.

Does this mean that laws don't make a difference?

No, because that conclusion doesn't take into account obvious confounding variables. The abortion-prohibiting countries with high abortion estimates are developing nations. (As Guttmacher acknowledges, "The vast majority ... of countries with such highly restrictive laws are in developing regions.") One cannot, therefore, simply compare the abortion rates in these regions to the abortion rates in wealthy, developed regions. That's like apples and oranges.

To get a much better idea of the effectiveness of abortion laws, one could compare developmentally similar countries, some with legalized abortion and some without, or one could compare a country when it has legalized abortion to that same country when it doesn't.

Take Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Britain permits abortion while the Irish jurisdictions have prohibited it (though Ireland voted recently to eliminate constitutional protection for unborn children). A 2013 study in the Journal of American Physician

s and Surgeons found that the abortion rate in England and Wales was three times higher than the rate in Ireland and 5.5 times higher than in Northern Ireland—even accounting for the Irish women who traveled to Britain or elsewhere to have abortions.

Consider the United States. Illegal abortion estimates were mostly unreliable, but after the nationwide legalization of abortion in January 1973 (it had already been legalized or partially legalized in a number of states), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 615,831 abortions that year. The annual total then shot up 111 percent by 1980. The abortion rate rose 79 percent during the same period.

Or consider a developing country like Ethiopia. The Ethiopian government amended its abortion law to permit abortion in broader circumstances and then worked to expand access to the procedure. The result? According to estimates from a study in the journal International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (published by Guttmacher), the number of abortions in Ethiopia increased 60 percent from 2008 to 2014. The abortion rate rose 30 percent.

An important study in the Journal of Law and Economics analyzed data from numerous Eastern European countries that changed their abortion laws after the Cold War. Some of those countries legalized abortion, while Poland, after decades of permitting abortion, enacted legal protection for unborn children. The study controlled for economic and demographic variables.

What did it find? "On the basis of all available abortion data," the authors write, "countries in which abortion is legal only to save the mother's life or for specific medical reasons have abortion rates that are only about 5 percent of the level observed in countries in which abortion is legal on request."

Protecting unborn children by law makes a massive difference.

Limited abortion laws are effective

In the decades since the legalization of abortion in the United States, full protection for unborn children has not been politically or legally possible. So pro-life advocates have worked to enact measures that are more limited. Do these modest pro-life laws make any difference?

Definitely. Take restrictions or bans on taxpayer funding of abortion. The evidence is overwhelming that these laws reduce the incidence of abortion. A literature review by Guttmacher concludes, based on 22 different studies, that "approximately one-fourth of women who would have Medicaid-funded abortions instead give birth when this funding is unavailable." The Hyde Amendment, which prohibits most federal funding of abortion, has prevented more than two million abortions, according to a 2016 analysis.

Take parental involvement laws. Numerous studies show that these measures reduce the rate of abortion among minors. A study in the American Journal of Public Health, for example, found that the minor abortion rate in Minnesota dropped 28 percent in the years immediately following enactment of Minnesota's parental notification law (the abortion rate did not decline among women ages 20-44, who were unaffected by the law).

Informed consent laws can also reduce abortions. The most popular type of informed consent law (the kind upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision) leads to "statistically significant reductions to both the abortion rate and ratio whenever Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) abortion data are analyzed," according to a 2014 study published in State Politics & Policy Quarterly.

Pro-life laws like these have substantially contributed to the long-term abortion decline in the United States.

Laws save lives

Laws affect behavior. They encourage people to act a certain way. Abortion-related laws, in particular, affect the availability and costs of abortion, factors that influence decision-making. Laws also can shape citizens' attitudes or beliefs about an act—they have a teaching effect that, in turn, influences the way people behave.

Pro-life laws affect behavior by preventing the killing of human beings in the womb. "Overall, the existing academic research paints a very clear picture," concludes social scientist Michael J. New in a recent overview. "Legal protections for unborn children reduce abortion rates and save lives."

People sometimes break abortion laws, of course, just as people sometimes break laws against theft or tax fraud. That's especially true when a law is poorly designed or enforced or when there are societal factors that reduce its effectiveness. But such problems are not a good reason to get rid of the law. They are a good reason to improve it.

After all, if unborn children are valuable members of the human family, then justice and equality require that society protect their basic human rights, including their right not to be intentionally killed.

ST. PAUL — Today marks the 50th anniversary of the incorporation of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), Minnesota's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

"Through MCCL's work over the last five decades, hearts and minds have been changed, laws have been enacted, and lives have been saved," says MCCL President Leo LaLonde. "And it has only been possible because of the faithful support and dedication of thousands and thousands of pro-life Minnesotans."

On June 12, 1968, a small group of Minnesotans who were concerned for life formed an organization to oppose legalized abortion and defend the right to life of every member of the human family. Since then, MCCL has worked through education, legislation, and political action to secure protection for innocent human life from abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide, and embryo-destructive research.

MCCL's educational activities and events have reached citizens with the message of the humanity of the unborn child and the inhumanity of abortion. MCCL's work at the Legislature has led to enactment of numerous pro-life laws that have helped reduce abortions and save lives. MCCL's two political action committees have helped elect candidates to office who have enacted lifesaving laws and policies.

"Abortions in Minnesota have dropped almost 50 percent since 1980," says LaLonde. "But nearly 10,000 unborn children are still killed here each year, and assisted suicide is a continuing threat. There is still a lot of work to do."

MCCL celebrated its anniversary with a special reception on June 7 at the Minnesota History Center in St. Paul. Attendees included many members and friends of MCCL, including elected officials, former Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and current Lt. Gov. Michelle Fischbach. (Watch a video and see photos from the event.)

"Fifty years later, we're not going anywhere," concludes LaLonde. "MCCL's work to defend those who need defending is as important now as ever."

]]>Letter to the editor: Assisted suicide is unnecessary and dangerous]]>Paul Starkhttps://www.mccl.org/single-post/2018/05/31/Letter-to-the-editor-Assisted-suicide-is-unnecessary-and-dangeroushttps://www.mccl.org/single-post/2018/05/31/Letter-to-the-editor-Assisted-suicide-is-unnecessary-and-dangerousThu, 31 May 2018 19:02:17 +0000

The following letter to the editor was published on May 31, 2018, in the

Star Tribune.

Contrary to the position advocated by Joe Selvaggio in his recent commentary, assisted suicide and euthanasia are unnecessary and dangerous.

Selvaggio worries about pain and the "endless extension" of life. But pain can now be controlled better than ever. In the states where assisted suicide is legal, concern about pain (or the mere possibility of pain) is not even a major reason cited.

And it's already legal to decline burdensome life-extending treatment and allow an illness to take its course. That's very different from intentional killing—whether that killing is through lethal injection (as in the Netherlands and Belgium), ingesting a lethal drug overdose (as in several U.S. states), or dehydration and starvation (Selvaggio's own "compromise" position).

Selvaggio suggests that the limitations that come with age are a good reason for such killing. "When we cannot help each other or laugh along the way, it's time to go," he says (quoting a comic strip). But someone's ability to "help" me is not the measure of her value. Those who are sick and disabled matter just as much as those who are healthy and able-bodied.

Selvaggio also endorses suicide in order to prevent "ever more expenses" and to "have more resources to invest in the young." This is the kind of pressure to die we can expect when killing is a viable option. In states with assisted suicide, some patients have been denied health coverage for treatments and offered less-expensive lethal drugs instead.

Everyone deserves support and care. Minnesota should continue to reject assisted suicide.

]]>How Planned Parenthood works to increase the number of abortions]]>Paul Starkhttps://www.mccl.org/single-post/2018/05/23/How-Planned-Parenthood-works-to-increase-the-number-of-abortionshttps://www.mccl.org/single-post/2018/05/23/How-Planned-Parenthood-works-to-increase-the-number-of-abortionsWed, 23 May 2018 18:41:38 +0000

Abortions in Minnesota and nationwide are on a long-term downward trajectory. Planned Parenthood, the leading practitioner of abortion, sometimes takes credit for this decline.

"We do more to prevent unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion than any organization in this country," says former Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards.

This is a bizarre claim. After all, as overall abortions have dropped over the last few decades, Planned Parenthood's own abortion total has dramatically increased.

In Minnesota, as the overall state total decreased 29 percent from 2006 to 2016, Planned Parenthood managed to increase its abortions by 54 percent. In 2006, Pl

anned Parenthood performed 26 percent of Minnesota abortions; 10 years later, it performed 57 percent.

In a new study published in the peer-reviewed Open Journal of Preventive Medicine, researchers James Studnicki and John W. Fisher analyze Planned Parenthood's impact on abortion numbers.

The authors look at a phenomenon called "supply-induced demand" in which providers "use their discretionary power to engage in demand inducement activities which can alter the volume of services delivered."

To see the effect of this in the abortion industry, Studnicki and Fisher compare changing abortion rates at Planned Parenthood to rates at other facilities. This allows them to estimate "the number of abortions which would have been averted if the PP [Planned Parenthood] utilization experience had been identical to that of the Non-PP providers." They call this the "Planned Parenthood Abortion Inflation Effect."

From 1995 to 2014, the study found, the number of abortions nationwide decreased 31 percent while the number of Planned Parenthood abortions increased 142 percent. "Excess abortions" attributed to Planned Parenthood totaled 258,200 in 2014. The cumulative excess total from 1995 to 2014 was 3,025,560.

"More than three million abortions that might have been avoided can be attributed to Planned Parenthood's intervention in the abortion market," says Dr. Studnicki.

What accounts for this? Studnicki and Fisher explain:

[Supply-induced demand] may be motivated by financial gain for the service providers, by patients who are not fully informed of their options and thus delegate the decision to the supplier, and by the influence of provider values.

Despite a 25% reduction of total unduplicated clients between 1995 (3,334,203) and 2014 (2,500,000), PP revenues from government reimbursement and grants increased 220% from $112 million to $554 million, reflecting a shift from low-revenue counseling and contraception services to much higher revenue abortions. Similarly, total net assets during the period increased nearly 400% from $310 million to $1.5 billion, indicative of a service with a higher profitability mix. PP eschews information on abortion [alternatives] such as adoption referrals, and provides no post-natal care. Finally, it would be difficult to exaggerate the promotional impact of the coalescence of PP with a national political party and their mutual embrace of pro-abortion ideology and values. The evidence suggests that PP has had a long-term inflationary effect on the incidence and prevalence of abortion in the US.

Planned Parenthood doesn't decrease abortions. It works to increase abortions. It makes the number of unborn children killed much higher than it would otherwise be.

Why? Because abortion is at Planned Parenthood's ideological and financial core.

ST. PAUL — Gov. Mark Dayton today vetoed the mainstream pro-life measure that would ensure pregnant women access to their ultrasounds prior to an abortion. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization, is deeply disappointed with the governor's action. "Once again Gov. Dayton has yielded to the extremes of the abortion industry, which actually lobbied against informed consent for women," said MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau. "With this veto of the ultrasound bill, the governor has demonstrated profound disregard for the rights of Minnesota's women."S.F. 2849, authored by Sen. Michelle Benson, R-Ham Lake, and Rep. Abigail Whelan, R-Ramsey, would simply allow women to view their ultrasound prior to an abortion, if an ultrasound is performed. The legislation would require the physician or person performing the procedure to offer the woman the opportunity to view her ultrasound as it is being done, ensuring her the choice of whether or not to view the image. The measure earned bipartisan support in both chambers. Even though most abortion facilities perform ultrasound prior to an abortion to determine the development and location of the unborn child and the appropriate abortion method, they typically do not offer women the chance to see the ultrasound. S.F. 2849 would have provided women with factual medical information prior to an abortion. The bill would have added a paragraph to the state's existing Woman’s Right to Know informed consent law. "This legislation should not be controversial—it was about basic informed consent for women," Rau said. Gov. Dayton has vetoed numerous pro-life bills approved by the Legislature over the last eight years. The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion, abortion facility licensure, a ban on dangerous "webcam abortions," and bans on human cloning and taxpayer funding of human cloning were all vetoed by pro-abortion Gov. Dayton, who will not run for reelection this year. "This governor has been no friend to pro-life legislation," Rau said. "Minnesotans are weary of his repeated rejection of life-affirming initiatives. It is time for a state executive who will act to protect all of our citizens, including unborn children."

ST. PAUL — The Minnesota House of Representatives today approved mainstream pro-life legislation to ensure women's right to view their ultrasound. The informed consent measure has the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.S.F. 2849, authored by Rep. Abigail Whelan, R-Ramsey, and Sen. Michelle Benson, R-Ham Lake, would simply allow women to view their ultrasound prior to an abortion, if an ultrasound is performed. The legislation would require the physician or person performing the procedure to offer the woman the opportunity to view her ultrasound as it is being done. The measure has earned support in both chambers, and was passed on a bipartisan vote of 79-48 in the House today after a 37-30 bipartisan approval vote in the Senate last week. Even though most abortion facilities perform ultrasound prior to an abortion to determine the development and location of the unborn child and the appropriate abortion method, they typically do not offer women the chance to see the ultrasound. S.F. 2849 would provide women with factual medical information prior to an abortion. "Access to their ultrasounds enhances informed consent for women," said MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau. "Women have a right to comprehensive information prior to an abortion, empowering them to make the best decision for them." The bill would add a paragraph to the state's existing Woman's Right to Know informed consent law. More than two dozen states have enacted laws related to ultrasound, though many are much more prescriptive than S.F. 2849. The MCCL-supported initiative would ensure that women are given access to their ultrasound, enabling them to make a truly informed decision regarding abortion.

These revelations can be gut-wrenching. Many people think abortion is justified. In fact, medical professionals have frequently presented abortion to parents as the only or default option.

In a speech earlier this year on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren pointed to such "devastating stories" as a reason to oppose any legal limit on abortion late in pregnancy. Denying abortion would be "cruel," she said.

Is she right?

A disability, disease, or deformity doesn't justify killing

An unexpected prenatal diagnosis often isn't fatal. Non-terminal conditions range from cleft palate and Down syndrome to heart defects and sickle-cell disease.

These diagnoses pose real challenges to families. But is abortion an appropriate response? Not if the unborn child is a valuable human being.

Parents may not kill their toddler if they learn that she will be less intellectually capable than other children. They may not execute a 10-year-old with spina bifida because they think she would be better off dead. They may not terminate a Down syndrome teenager because raising her has become too burdensome.

If unborn human beings have a right to life, like toddlers, 10-year-olds, and teenagers, then killing them because of a disability or disease is equally unjustified.

Of course, some people think that unborn humans (whether or not they are sick or disabled) do not have the same value and right to life as older human beings. But this is only a different form of wrongful discrimination. Just as ability and health are irrelevant to human rights, so too are age, size, location, and the desires and decisions of others.

The fears that drive abortion, moreover, are often unfounded. Many parents worry about the difficulties of raising a child with special needs. But caring for sick or disabled children, though hard, is enriching and rewarding, as many parents and caregivers attest.

Researchers at Boston Children's Hospital found that 79 percent of parents of children with Down syndrome say their child has given them a better outlook on life. Only 4 percent regret having their child in the first place.

"[T]he experience of Down syndrome is a positive one for most parents, siblings, and people with Down syndrome themselves," the researchers conclude.

Some parents express concern about their child's future "quality of life." Yet people with disabilities or medical limitations live meaningful and often happy and fulfilling lives. A major study published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics, for example, found that 99 percent of people with Down syndrome are happy.

"In our [survey], people with Down syndrome encouraged parents to love their babies with Down syndrome, mentioning that their own lives were good," the researchers note. "They further encouraged healthcare professionals to value them, emphasizing that they share similar hopes and dreams as people without Down syndrome."

Frank Stephens, a man with Down syndrome, testified last year before a congressional committee. "[People with Down syndrome] are the canary in the eugenics coal mine," he said. "We are giving the world a chance to think about the ethics of choosing which humans get a chance at life."

Everyone deserves that chance.

A life-limiting condition doesn't justify killing

What about when a child in the womb is diagnosed with a lethal condition, such as anencephaly, Trisomy 18, or Potter's syndrome? She will likely die before, during, or shortly after birth. Surely, many people think, a pregnant woman should not have to endure such a traumatic pregnancy.

But the fact that someone will soon die is no justification for killing her. We may not kill terminal patients in the cancer ward or elderly grandparents in the nursing home. Indeed, all of us will die at some point in the future, but we ought to be treated with dignity and respect in the present.

Nor is the alleviation of trauma a good reason for killing. Imagine a father whose 5-year-old daughter is dying of leukemia. This is an agonizing experience for him. May he end her life to "get it over with," avoid painful conversations when someone asks about his family, and "move on" to his next child? Of course not.

If unborn human beings really matter—like cancer patients, grandparents, and 5-year-old daughters—then they likewise may not be killed on account of a terminal condition.

Moreover, abortion in these circumstances does not actually serve the emotional and psychological health of pregnant women. Research suggests that it does precisely the opposite.

A study in the Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, for example, concludes that abortion after a terminal diagnosis is a "traumatic event" that "entails the risk of severe and complicated grieving." A 2016 Swedish study found that "women who terminate a pregnancy due to a fetal anomaly express considerable physical and emotional pain, with psychosocial and reproductive consequences."

Another study, published in 2015 in the journal Prenatal Diagnosis, compared women who aborted because of a fatal condition to women who did not. "Women who terminated reported significantly more despair, avoidance, and depression than women who continued the pregnancy," the Duke University authors conclude. "There appears to be a psychological benefit to women to continue the pregnancy following a lethal fetal diagnosis."

Abortion in life-limiting cases isn't healthy for pregnant women—or for their unborn children.

A better way: Dignity, equality, and love

Human beings in utero are valuable members of the human family. We ought to treat them accordingly.

That means we should respect their dignity, recognize the equal rights of those

who have disabilities or diseases, and love them even when their time is short. It means that, at the very least, we should never choose to dismember or poison them to death.

None of this, of course, is to deny the challenges of an adverse prenatal diagnosis. But support and options are available. Numerous organizations and programs help families deal with unexpected diagnoses. Many couples seek to adopt children with special needs.

In the case of a life-limiting diagnosis, perinatal hospice and palliative care is a healthy alternative to abortion. It acknowledges terminally ill unborn children as real patients and real children. It gives parents time to process and to make memories. It provides support and closure to grieving families.

One study found that 75 percent of parents choose this option if it is simply offered to them. Another study determined that 85 percent make that life-affirming decision.

"I believe that [abortion] would have caused us real emotional harm," she writes, "as well as closed us off from the extraordinary gifts that we and our families and close friends were able to experience as we all waited with Gabriel."

The following is a letter to the editor that was published on May 8, 2018, in the

Duluth News Tribune.

Jennifer Boyle's April 29 letter criticizes recent federal legislation that would protect unborn children after 20 weeks, when substantial scientific evidence indicates they can experience pain. Her criticisms of this important measure are way off the mark.

First, she says that the vast majority of abortions happen before 20 weeks. True, but thousands of unborn children are still killed each year (nationwide) after that point, often via a dismemberment procedure. Those lives matter—and so does their suffering.

Second, Boyle says that "neurological function necessary to perceive pain does not occur until 29 to 30 weeks." This view is based on the idea that a functioning cerebral cortex is needed for pain perception. That idea is contradicted by multiple lines of evidence.

"Neurological findings indicate that 'mature' pain perception is largely localized to the thalamus," testified neurobiologist Dr. Maureen Condic before Congress. "The spino-thalamic circuits required for pain perception are established between 12-18 weeks post[-conception]."

Third, Boyle writes that "abortions after 20 weeks almost always happen when something has gone terribly wrong." That's false. Even a study published by the Guttmacher Institute, which opposes any limits on abortion, acknowledges that "data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment."

Most of the abortions we are talking about are purely elective.

Of course, many late abortions do involve difficult cases. But human beings diagnosed in utero with serious diseases or disabilities should be treated with dignity and respect. In tragic situations like the one Boyle recounts (a terminal diagnosis), perinatal hospice is a loving alternative to intentional killing.

Tearing off the arms and legs and crushing the skulls of pain-capable unborn children is not, as Boyle absurdly claims, "health care." It's barbarism. A just and compassionate society has to be better than this.

ST. PAUL — Mainstream pro-life legislation to ensure women's right to view their ultrasound was approved by the Minnesota Senate today. The informed consent measure has the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.S.F. 2849, authored by Sen. Michelle Benson, R-Ham Lake, would simply allow women to view their ultrasound prior to an abortion, if an ultrasound is performed. The legislation would require the physician or person performing the procedure to offer the woman the opportunity to view her ultrasound as it is being done. The measure has earned bipartisan support in both chambers, and was passed on a bipartisan vote of 37-30 in the Senate today. Even though most abortion facilities perform ultrasound prior to an abortion to determine the development and location of the unborn child and the appropriate abortion method, they typically do not offer women the chance to see the ultrasound. S.F. 2849 would provide women with factual medical information prior to an abortion. "This bill is about informed consent for women," said MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau. "Women have a right to comprehensive information prior to an abortion, empowering them to make the best decision for them." The bill would add a paragraph to the state's existing Woman's Right to Know informed consent law. More than two dozen states have enacted laws related to ultrasound, though many are much more prescriptive than S.F. 2849. The MCCL-supported initiative would ensure that women are given access to their ultrasound, enabling them to make a truly informed decision regarding abortion.

The national assisted suicide advocacy group Final Exit Network (FEN) filed suit in federal court this week against the State of Minnesota in its ongoing challenge to the state's law against assisted suicide. In 2015, a Dakota Co. jury found FEN guilty of assisting the suicide of an Apple Valley woman who took her life in 2007. FEN was fined more than $30,000 for violating state law protecting people who could become victims of assisted suicide. FEN appealed the conviction, which was upheld by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2016. FEN then petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court, which denied the appeal in March 2017. "Final Exit Network purposely came into our state, broke our law and assisted in a suicide of a vulnerable person who needed care, not suicide," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "Following FEN's conviction we anticipated it would take its fight against our protective law to federal court." Minnesota's law protecting citizens from suicide predators like Final Exit Network has been in place since 1992 and has served the people of the state well. Legislation recently proposed at the Minnesota Legislature would legalize assisted suicide. That would be a serious mistake. Assisted suicide can lead to:

Abuse: Abuse of people with disabilities, and elder abuse. An heir or abusive caregiver may steer someone towards assisted suicide, witness the request, pick up the lethal dose, and even give the drug.Mistakes: Diagnoses of terminal illness are too often wrong, leading people to give up on treatment and lose good years of their lives.Carelessness: People with a history of depression and suicide attempts have received the lethal drugs.Contagion: Assisted suicide is a contagion and can increase suicide rates for all populations.PTSD: Stress disorder rates increase for family and friends who participate in a suicide.

"Now the federal courts need to recognize and affirm not only the constitutionality of Minnesota’s law against assisted suicide, but also its just intent to protect those who could be victimized by FEN and others," Fischbach said.

They are offered, rather, by moral philosophers and bioethicists. How do these more sophisticated (if not exactly rhetorically influential) arguments hold up to scrutiny?

The function view

Philosophers who defend abortion generally acknowledge that human embryos and fetuses are living individuals of the species Homo sapiens. That's a fact of biology. They typically argue, though, that such human beings are not "persons" with a right to life. To be a person or to have rights, they contend, one must have certain developed mental capacities—functions that (at least many) unborn humans lack.

Call this the function view.

What abilities does the function view deem necessary? Different thinkers propose different criteria. Philosopher Mary Anne Warren proposes five capacities: consciousness (especially the ability to feel pain), reasoning, self-motivated activity, communication, and self-awareness. Only individuals who have at least some of these abilities, she argues, count as persons.

Many of the leading thinkers who support abortion (e.g., Michael Tooley, David Boonin, Bonnie Steinbock) connect rights to desires. An individual can only have rights if she (in some sense) desires, values, or takes an "interest" in her life or future—if it matters to her. And su

ch a desire requires some kind of consciousness or self-awareness.

If a human being has no higher mental functioning, then she can't want or take an interest in anything. Her life doesn't matter to her. And so she has no rights, and killing her is permissible. That's the argument.

Does it work?

The function view's exclusion problem

The function view, in all of its forms, suffers from some serious difficulties.

First, functional criteria for personhood exclude more human beings than just the unborn. If the capacity for consciousness confers personhood, for example, then patients in temporary comas are excluded. If self-awareness or rationality is necessary, then people who are comatose, people with advanced dementia, and people with severe mental disabilities may have no rights.

Suppose that the ability to experience pain grants someone a right to life. In that case, people with a condition known as congenital insensitivity to pain may be killed. Suppose that desires make the difference. In that case, if a Buddhist master succeeds in purging himself of all desire, then killing him is permissible, as philosopher Christopher Kaczor writes.

Human infants pose a massive problem for the function view. Infants are not self-aware. They can't reason or use language. They don't have desires in any robust sense. They don't meet most ordinary functional criteria.

Indeed, in an article for the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that killing infants is permissible because newborn children, like unborn children, cannot value their own existence. This conclusion is far from new or unusual. A number of the most prominent thinkers who defend abortion, such as Michael Tooley and Peter Singer, also defend infanticide.

If a view logically entails that it's okay to kill temporarily comatose patients, or Buddhist masters, or infants, then something is deeply wrong with that view.

The function view's inequality problem

A second difficulty is that functional criteria are a matter of degree. People can be more self-aware (e.g., a wise sage) or less self-aware (a man with Alzheimer's disease). They can be more sentient (the heavily caffeinated) or less sentient (the heavily medicated). They can be more rational (Mr. Spock) or less rational (Mr. T). They can have a stronger desire to live (the exuberant and happy) or a weaker desire to live (the dour and depressed). No two people are exactly equal.

If the right to life is based on those degreed characteristics, as the function view claims, then some people have a greater right to life and some people have a lesser right to life. It's not just that the unborn aren't equal to the rest of us—it's that none of us are equal. Our value is a sliding scale. Equality doesn't exist.

"It is hard to avoid the sense that our egalitarian commitments rest on distressingly insecure foundations," acknowledges philosopher Jeff McMahan, a defender of abortion. McMahan worries about "the compatibility of our all-or-nothing egalitarian beliefs with the fact that the properties on which our moral status appears to supervene are all matters of degree."

Some people try to solve the inequality problem by proposing a "threshold" (a certain degree of the relevant trait) and asserting that everyone above the threshold matters equally. Mere assertion, however, doesn't make it true. If the value-conferring trait comes in varying degrees, then any threshold is arbitrary—and actual equality is still a myth.

Where the argument goes wrong

The function view, then, has awful and false implications. That's because it flows from false assumptions.

The most common versions of the view (those that emphasize self-awareness, sentience, and desire) seem to assume that psychological states are all that matter morally—so killing is only wrong if it thwarts someone's desires or conscious experiences. "In order for a harm to occur," explain Giubilini and Minerva, "it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm."

This thinking, however, "confuses the experience of harm with the reality of harm," as ethicist Scott B. Rae observes. Imagine that a man is secretly robbed of an inheritance he never knew he had coming (to use an example from philosopher Robert N. Wennberg). Has he been wronged—even though he doesn't know it? Of course he has. The same is true when someone is robbed of his life.

The primary injustice of killing an innocent human being is not that it thwarts desires he happens to have (though thwarting desires may be, in general, a wrong thing to do). It's that it deprives him of his life. That life is valuable whether he currently values it or takes an "interest" in it or not.

"[I]t is the loss of the good of life, not the interference with the desire for that good, that constitutes the harm [of killing] and hence the wrong done," concludes Kaczor.

We matter because of what we are, not what we can do

The function view is right, however, to think there's something special about the functions typical mature human beings can perform. We can reason, and create, and choose, and love. But the function view is wrong to suppose that having rights requires the present ability to do t

hese things. That idea leads to the injustice and inequality described above.

tes functioning as a person with being a person. All human beings have the inherent (or basic) capacity to function in personal ways, whether or not that capacity is developed or currently exercisable. We have this capacity by nature—by virtue of what (i.e., the kind of being) we are.

Actual functioning, then, isn't what matters. We have dignity and a right to life not because of what we can do, but because of what we are. There's no test of mental ability we must pass in order to count.

Brennan criticizes a new Minnesota bill (H.F. 3194 and S.F. 2849) requiring that when an ultrasound is performed prior to an abortion, the pregnant woman be offered the chance to see it. Brennan calls this measure a "thinly veiled attempt to shame women."

There's no truth in that whatsoever. The legislation isn't about shaming anyone. It's about information and empowerment. The more factual medical information women have about their pregnancy and abortion, the less likely they are to make a decision they will regret.

Nor is this a case of "meddling in women's medical decisions," as Brennan describes it. Women can choose whether or not to see their ultrasounds. The bill simply guarantees that they have that choice.

Brennan's letter criticizes public officials for even considering legislation in this area. But the law regulates all sorts of things to ensure the welfare of individuals and society. Abortion-seeking women shouldn't be excluded from such concern.

Brennan assures readers that "physicians are already fulfilling their ... duty to ... fully inform their patients." But they usually don't offer women the opportunity to view their ultrasounds before abortion—hence the reason for the bill.

Women have a right to see. This ultrasound legislation is a commonsense effort to better empower patients that all Minnesotans, regardless of their views on abortion, can and should support.

ST. PAUL — The number of abortions funded by Minnesota taxpayers hit another all-time high in 2016, according to released by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Taxpayers bankrolled a total of 4,321 abortions at a cost of $1.056 million.

"Minnesota's Court-imposed policy of tax-funded abortion allows the abortion industry to offer 'free' abortions to economically vulnerable women," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "This gives the industry an easy revenue stream, and it is taking full advantage—especially in the face of the long-term trend of declining overall abortions."

A 1995 state Supreme Court ruling, Doe v. Gomez, overturned Minnesota's law against funding elective abortion and required the state to pay for abortions for women receiving state assistance. Since then, taxpayers have reimbursed abortion practitioners close to $25 million for nearly 82,000 abortion procedure claims.

State-funded abortions have jumped 27 percent since 2013. A record-high 43.4 percent of Minnesota abortions are now funded by taxpayers.

Planned Parenthood, which continues to increase its dominance of the abortion market, relies heavily on taxpayer funding to grow its abortion numbers and revenue year after year. It performed a record-high 2,322 tax-funded abortions in 2016—a 13 percent increase over the previous year and a shocking 168 percent increase since 2011. For the first time, Planned Parenthood now performs over half (54 percent) of all abortions funded by the state. The group billed taxpayers a record-high $521,596 for these abortions in 2016.

Whole Woman's Health, Minnesota's second leading abortion practitioner, slightly increased its tax-funded abortion total to 990. Together, Planned Parenthood and Whole Woman's Health account for more than three-quarters of state-funded abortions.

"Planned Parenthood's use of our tax dollars for abortion inflates the number of abortions and costs the lives of many, many unborn children," concluded Fischbach. "It exploits the circumstances of low-income women who need real solutions, not abortion. And it makes every Minnesota taxpayer part of the injustice of abortion. This has to stop."

MCCL helped to pass legislation to stop taxpayer funding of abortion in 2011 and 2017, but both bills were vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton.

Marcus's attitude is far from unusual. A large proportion of human beings diagnosed in utero with Down syndrome are killed for that reason. Many people—especially those who have Down syndrome or family members with Down syndrome—are rightly offended by this form of discrimination. It's discrimination that is made possible, however, by a prior form of discrimination.

After all, Marcus doesn't think that killing adults who have Down syndrome is permissible. She wouldn’t choose to execute a Down syndrome toddler because he is "not the child I wanted."

But that's exactly why she says she would have a fetal human being executed.

The difference is that, as Marcus puts it, she doesn't think "abortion is equivalent to murder, the taking of a human life." (Presumably, she means "human life" in a non-scientific, philosophical sense.) She doesn't think unborn human beings (disabled or not) matter in the way that older human beings matter. So, unlike other members of the species Homo sapiens, embryos and fetuses lack a right not to be intentionally killed.

Why?

It could be because unborn humans don't have the same cognitive functions that we do. It could be that they look different. It could be that we feel differently about them.

Whatever the particulars of the view, though, a decision to kill a baby on the basis of disability (or other morally trivial characteristics, like sex) is only possible because of a prior judgement that human beings at this stage simply have no human rights we are bound to respect. It's only possible because of prior discrimination on the basis of age, or size, or function, or dependency, or the desires and decisions of others.

It's discrimination on top of discrimination. It's ableism that is culturally and legally acceptable because of ageism.

But the latter form of discrimination isn't any better or more morally justified than the former. The fundamental problem with the practice of Down syndrome abortion is the same as that with abortion in general. Abortion always is a denial of human equality.

ST. PAUL — Pro-life legislation ensuring women's right to view their ultrasound was approved by the Minnesota Senate Health and Human Services Finance and Policy committee Tuesday. The informed consent measure has the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). S.F. 2849 (H.F. 3194), authored by Sen. Michelle Benson, R-Ham Lake, would simply allow women to view their ultrasound prior to an abortion, if an ultrasound is performed. The legislation would require the physician or person performing the procedure to offer the woman the opportunity to view her ultrasound as it is being done. The mainstream measure has earned bipartisan support in both chambers. Even though most abortion facilities perform ultrasound prior to an abortion to determine the development and location of the unborn child and the appropriate abortion method, they typically do not offer women the chance to see the ultrasound. S.F. 2849 would provide women access to factual medical information prior to an abortion. "While not all women regret their decision to have an abortion, some do," MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau told committee members. "This legislation is meant to ensure that women have more comprehensive information in order to ensure they make the best decision for them." The bill would add a paragraph to the state’s existing Woman's Right to Know informed consent law. Two post-abortive women submitted written testimony stating they were denied the right to see their ultrasounds performed at abortion facilities, and that they would not have undergone abortion had they been allowed to view their ultrasounds. More than two dozen states have enacted laws related to ultrasound, though many are much more prescriptive than S.F. 2849. The MCCL-supported initiative would ensure that women are given access to their ultrasound, empowering them to make a truly informed decision regarding abortion.

ST. PAUL — Karin Housley has been endorsed for the U.S. Senate by the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Federal PAC, National Right to Life PAC, and SBA List (Susan B. Anthony List). The MCCL Federal PAC brought together these national pro-life organizations today for a news conference at the Minnesota Capitol to endorse Stillwater pro-life State Sen. Housley in her race against Sen. Tina Smith. "Karin Housley's pro-life voting record perfectly reflects the convictions of the great majority of Minnesotans, unlike that of pro-abortion Tina Smith," said Andrea Rau of the MCCL Federal PAC. "Sen. Housley's record of always voting for the protection of innocent human life will be well received by the people of Minnesota." Housley has been a strong advocate for unborn children and their mothers at the Legislature. Since her election in 2012, she has voted at every opportunity in favor of a ban on taxpayer funded abortion. Over the last 20 years taxpayers have been forced to fund more than 77,000 abortions (nearly all elective) at a cost of $23.5 million.

Housley has repeatedly voted in support of the licensing and inspection of Minnesota's abortion facilities, which remain unlicensed by the state. She also voted to exclude abortion coverage from the state's MNsure medical insurance program. In sharp contrast, Smith has a long record of abortion advocacy. She is a former vice president for the Minnesota Planned Parenthood affiliate, where abortions increased 22 percent during her three years there. Smith led Planned Parenthood's fierce opposition to informed consent legislation regarding abortion, and lobbied against a grant program to extend support to women who do not want to abort their unborn babies. In her short time as a U.S. senator appointed by Gov. Mark Dayton, Smith has voted against the protection of well-developed unborn babies who are able to feel pain. Smith also voted against the confirmation of Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, even though the American Bar Association unanimously rated Stras "well qualified" for the position.

"Tina Smith is an abortion industry insider whose extreme views on abortion put her far outside the mainstream of Minnesotans," Rau said. "Karin Housley will be a welcome voice in the U.S. Senate to advocate for the most vulnerable among us—including unborn children and their mothers."

"There is a stark contrast between Karin Housley and Tina Smith," affirmed NRL PAC President Carol Tobias. "Karin Housley's position on life reflects the true values of Minnesota's voters. She will support commonsense legislation that represents you. I urge all Minnesota voters to elect Karin Housley to the United States Senate."

SBA List, which works to elect pro-life women, heartily agreed.

"For too long this seat has been held by abortion extremists who are out of step with most Minnesotans," said SBA List's Sue Swayze Liebel. "Karin will work for the people, not the abortion lobby. Her voice is greatly needed in the U.S. Senate and we urge voters to support her."

ST. PAUL — A key pro-life measure affirming women's right to view their ultrasound was approved by the Minnesota House Health and Human Services Reform committee Tuesday. The informed consent measure has the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL).H.F. 3194 (S.F. 2849), authored by Rep. Abigail Whelan, R-Ramsey, would simply allow women to view their ultrasound prior to an abortion, if an ultrasound is performed. The legislation would require the physician or person performing the procedure to offer the woman the opportunity to view her ultrasound as it is being done. The mainstream measure has earned bi-partisan support in both chambers. Even though most abortion facilities perform ultrasound prior to an abortion to determine the size and location of the unborn child and the appropriate abortion method, they typically do not offer women the chance to see the ultrasound. "Ultrasound provides women with factual medical information," said MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau in her testimony. "When women have more information prior to having an abortion, they can be more confident in making a decision best for them, and less likely to make a decision they will regret." The bill would add a paragraph to the state's existing Woman's Right to Know informed consent law. More than two dozen states have enacted laws related to ultrasound, though many are much more prescriptive than H.F. 3194. The MCCL-supported initiative would ensure that women are given access to their ultrasound, empowering them to make a truly informed decision regarding abortion.

Several states have made it legal, in specified circumstances, for a doctor to prescribe a lethal drug overdose so that a patient can intentionally cause his or her own death. The term for this kind of act is assisted suicide.

But Compassion and Choices (C&C), the primary organization advocating its legalization, is deeply concerned about language. It vigorously denies that assisted suicide is "suicide" or "assisted suicide." It says that it is, instead, "medical aid in dying."

"Factually, legally and medically speaking," the group claims, "it is inaccurate to equate medical aid in dying with assisted suicide." Really?

Merriam-Websterdefines suicide as "the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally." A medical dictionary defines suicide as "the act of taking one's own life" and defines physician-assisted suicide as "voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician."

The American Medical Association says physician-assisted suicide is "when a physician facilitates a patient's death by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act (e.g., the physician provides sleeping pills and information

about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide)."

Suicide is intentionally ending one's own life. And assisted suicide is when someone else assists. There's no ambiguity here.

So is the practice in question "assisted suicide"? Yes, by definition, unequivocally. Assisting in suicide is assisted suicide. How on earth can C&C claim otherwise?

The group seems to offer two main arguments. First, it notes that laws authorizing assisted suicide expressly state that "actions taken in accordance with [the law] shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law."

All this means, though, is that a handful of state laws, through the influence of C&C itself, have declared that the assisted suicide specifically authorized in the law cannot legally be considered "assisted suicide." This exempts it from the legal prohibition on the practice.

That deceptive terminology choice doesn't change reality. But it does make it easier for C&C to get the laws enacted in the first place.

Second, C&C argues that people who die from the practice it advocates are psychologically different from people who die from suicide. Unlike the victims of suicide, C&C says, "people who seek medical aid in dying want to live but are stricken with life-ending illnesses." That's why it's "aid in dying" rather than "suicide."

But is there actually such a difference? With regard to regular (non-assisted) suicide, "most people who seriously consider suicide do not want to die," explainsWebMD. "Rather, they see suicide as a solution to a problem and a way to end their pain." The same is true of people who die by assisted suicide.

According to state health department reports, individuals who opt for assisted suicide worry about reduced autonomy, inability to participate in certain activities, perceived loss of "dignity," and feeling like a "burden" on others. (Physical pain is generally not a concern.) Some of them suffer from clinical depression, as a study of Oregon patients in the British Medical Journal found. (Indeed, assisted suicide patients hardly ever undergo a psychiatric evaluation before receiving the lethal prescription.)

In all cases, those who die by assisted suicide—like those who die by non-assisted suicide—feel that self-killing is the solution to a problem.

Even if C&C were correct in its psychological distinction, however, the definition of suicide includes no such qualification. Suicide is simply the taking of one's own life. So C&C is employing a redefinition of suicide. It's not the dictionary definition, or the medical definition, or our society's definition. It's a redefinition that C&C is using so that it can claim it is talking about something other than a type of suicide.

What about C&C's own terminology? In place of assisted suicide, the organization substitutes "aid in dying." This is a quintessential euphemism. "Aid in dying" suggests helping someone through the dying process. It does not suggest helping someone intentionally cause his or her own death with poison. It does not suggest killing. Yet that is what C&C uses the term to mean.

"'Physician aid-in-dying' makes it sound like giving someone a lethal drug is an extension of hospice and palliative care. It is not," observes Dr. Ira Byock, a Dartmouth professor and director of the Providence Institute for Human Caring. "As a palliative care physician I aid people in dying by treating their symptoms and supporting them through the difficult practical and emotional tasks of completing their lives. In more than 35 years of practice I have never once had to kill a patient to alleviate the person's suffering."

The unwillingness of C&C to let words mean what they mean should make us very skeptical of its agenda.

There is, after all, an obvious reason why assisted suicide advocates use misleading euphemisms. The reason is that everyone knows suicide is bad. Everyone knows suicide is tragic. It's bad and tragic because the life of a person matters regardless of circumstance and regardless of condition.